Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2004) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 10402 = 2004 L.A.R. 680
Decided on 03.08.2004
Alongwith R.O.A. 31 of 2003
For the Petitioner: Shri Sandeep Bansal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Shri Manohar Dadwal, Advocate.
Punjab Land Administration Manual, Para 305 to 348 – Lambardari Case – Vacant post of Lambardar – Tehsildar, on the report of Patwari, can seek applications and submit his recommendations to the Collector via Assistant Collector for filling the post of Lambardar – No need to take explicit approval of District Collector for starting proceedings for appointment of Lambardar or that making the proclamation in this regard.
(Para 4, 5)
ORDER
Sh. Mukul Joshi, I.A.S., Financial Commissioner. – Arguments were heard today on the limited point as to whether the explicit permission of the District Collector is required before initiating proceedings for appointment of Lambardar and whether the proclamation inviting application has to be made only under the orders of the District Collector.
2. On behalf of the petitioner the Counsel referred to para 323-A of the Punjab Land Administration Manual. As per this, the prescribed procedure envisages that on the occurrence of vacancy the Patwari should make a report to the Tehsildar who should then fix a date on which to consider and investigate the applications submitted for the post. The Tehsildar then should forward the papers to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade who after recording his opinion should send the papers to the Collector for final decision. The procedure, therefore, envisages that the Tehsildar can submit his recommendations to the Assistant Collector and thence to the Collector without the proclamation for this having necessarily been made with the explicit approval of the Collector.
3. On behalf of the respondent the Counsel for respondent drew my attention to the Rule 323, the first line of which states that “Where the office of headman has become vacant, it is duty of the Tehsildar to report without delay regarding the appoint of a successor.” The Counsel argued that this implies that the Tehsildar should report to the Collector who would then order a proclamation to invite applications, thereby initiating the procedure for appointment of Lambardar.
4. I have heard arguments of the Counsels. A plain reading of rules 323 and 323-A indicate the following:
1) It is nowhere stated that explicit prior permission of the District Collector is required before initiating proceedings for appointment of Lambardar, or that the proclamation in this regard only can be made under the explicit order of the District Collector.
2) That the Tehsildar can, on the report of the Patwari, seek applications and submit his recommendations to the Collector via the Assistant Collector.
5. I have also gone through the other provisions of the Punjab Land Administration Manual on appointment of Lambardar, i.e. para 305 to 348, and could not find any provision in these paragraphs that the proceedings for appointment of Lambardar to vacant Lambardari must be made with the explicit approval of the District Collector or that the proclamation in this regard has to be issued under the explicit orders of the Collector. It is not, therefore, understood how the Commissioner reached this conclusion in para 6 of his orders of 28.5.2003.
6. In view of the above the order of the Commissioner is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Commissioner for hearing the appeal on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner on 2.9.2004.
Order accordingly.
********