ORDER

Sh. Mukul Joshi, I.A.S., Financial Commissioner. – This is a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala dated 12.6.2001 vide which he dismissed the appeal filed against the order dated 11.5.1999 of the District Collector, Ludhiana in the matter of appointment of Lambardari of village Beer Kakrala Kalan, Tehsil Samrala District Ludhiana. Vide this order the Collector appointed the respondent Jagjit Singh as Lambardar against the vacancy occurring on the death of Shri Rakha Singh the earlier Lambardar. Aggrieved against this order the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 12.6.2001. The details of the case are contained in the order of the Collector and the Commissioner and need not be gone into again.

2. On behalf of the petitioner it was urged that the Collector had wrongly dismissed the claim of the petitioner and appointed the respondent as Lambardar although the respondent was a less suitable candidate. It was urged that the Collector had decided not to select the petitioner on the ground that she was residing in village Samana District Ropar, she was a teacher in Malwa School at Bondli and possessed less land. All these three grounds taken by the Collector were incorrect. It was urged that in fact Smt. Balwinder Kaur was a resident of village Beer Kakrala Kalan and her ration card had been made in that village. Her name was also in the voter list of the village. Of course she was married in village Samana but she was residing in village Beer Kakrala Kalan where she was owner of agricultural land. As regards her being a teacher in Malwa School this was some years ago and she had resigned. As regards ownership of land it was urged that she was owner of land of 1 Kanal 10 Marlas of land in village Beer Kakrala Kalan and also owned 21 Kanals 3-1/2 Marlas land in village Kakrala Kalan. For some reasons the Collector did not take this into account. Further it was urged that she was much better educated, being M.A.B.Ed, whereas the respondent Jagjit Singh was only a Matriculate. The Collector had also ignored the fact that the petitioner was a relative of the deceased Lambardar and had acted as Sarbrah Lambardar after the death of the previous Lambardar. The Collector had ignored these facts and dismissed the appeal. It was urged that the petitioner being a superior candidate the order of the Collector as well as the Commissioner be set aside and the petitioner be appointed as Lambardar.

3. On behalf of the respondent it was urged that the Collector had rightly selected the respondent for the post of Lambardar. The respondent was a young man, having good character and health, owner of 6 Kanal land in the village, a resident of the village, and had been recommended by the villagers. The petitioner, on the other hand was a resident of village Samana, District Ropar where she was married, and also a school teacher by reason of which she would not be available to the villagers. Further in appeal the petitioner had been unable to show in what way the order of the Collector suffered from any defect or infirmity. It was a well established principle that in Lambardari matters, the orders of the District Collector should be interfered with only if they contained some illegality, perversity or material irregularity. This was not so in the present case, and in the absence of this there is no cause for interference by the higher revenue authorities. It was prayed that the revision be dismissed.

4. I have gone through the arguments of the counsels. I am full agreement with the counsel for the respondent. There would no cause for interference in the orders of the Collector unless they contained some illegality, perversity or material irregularity. In the present case no such shortcomings have been determined in the order of the Collector. Even on merits the Collector has based his decision on a sound evaluation of the facts. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel that she is a resident of village Beer Kakrala Kalan cannot not be accepted at face value, since she is married in village Samana District Ropar and is ordinarily expected to reside in the village in which she is married. Further her name figures in the voters list in village Samana District Ropar. As regards being a teacher, on my asking she replied that she was teaching but resigned four years ago. This means at the time she applied for the post of Lambardar she was employed as a teacher and therefore the Collector was not wrong in taking into account this fact for determining the merits of the two candidates. As regards the ownership of the land, the ownership of the petitioner in the revenue estate under consideration i.e. Beer Kakrala Kalan is to be taken into consideration and this was rightly done by the Collector. There is no cause to warrant any interference in the orders of the Collector dated 11.5.1999 and the Commissioner has rightly dismissed the appeal.

5. In view of the above I find no force in the revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

********