ORDER

VINI MAHAJAN, FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER. –

1. This appeal under section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 has been filed against order dated 31-01-2017 passed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar in the matter of appointment of Lambardar.

2. Briefly, facts leading to the present appeal are that appellant Angrej Singh was appointed as Lambardar of village Bachiwind, Tehsil Ajnaia, by the District Collector, Amritsar vide order/dated 17-03-2016, on the vacancy caused due to the death of Kabul Singh, previous Lambardar. Appeal filed by Kulwant Singh, respondent, against this order was accepted by the Commissioner and matter was remanded to the District Collector with the observations that only one candidate was examined by the District Collector and no proper proclamation was made in the village. Hence the present appeal by Angrej Singh.

3. Written arguments have been filed by the counsel for both the parties.

4. Counsel for the appellant in his written arguments has submitted that on the death of Kabal Singh, previous Lambardar, proclamation was made in the village for inviting applications from the desirous persons, as a result application of Angrej Singh was received. A notice was issued on 10.12.2015 for conducting Mushtri Munadi in the village Bachiwind. In pursuance of the notice proclamation was conducted by Chowkidar in the village on 14.12.2015 and Halqa Patwari recorded to this effect in his Rapat If Roznamcha No 119 dated 14.12.2015. Thereafter Tehsildar called Naqsha Lambardari on 06.01.2016 and also sought report from SHO regarding character of the applicant. Thereafter considering all the material and recording statement of respectable persons produced by Angrej Singh, Tehsildar, recommended the name of the appellant on 03.02.2016. SDM Ajnala also recommended the name of the appellant.

5. With regard to merits of both the candidates, counsel has submitted that the appellant is 12th class pass, younger person of 32 years, owns 14 kanals and 15 marlas of land. On the other hand, respondent is 46 years old, having 20 kanals of land and is illiterate. Moreover the respondent is not a bonafide resident of Bachiwind, rather a resident of village Gaggarmal HB No. 176.

6. Counsel has further submitted that respondent has taken contradictory stand before Commissioner, as on the one hand he has stated that no proclamation was made in the village, whereas on the other hand in Para No. 14 it has been stated that proclamation is illegal at the back of the appellant by the department in connivance with the respondent. Counsel has submitted that Ld. Commissioner without giving any finding about any alleged perversity and illegality in the order of District Collector has remanded the case simply for the reason that only one candidate was examined and no proclamation was made in the village, without referring to the relevant material available on the record. The Sanad has been issued to the appellant on 17.3.2016 and he has been performing the duties of Nambardari satisfactorily. Further it is a settled proposition of law that the Collector's choice is not to be disturbed unless the Collector's order is perverse or illegal.

7. Counsel for the respondent, in his written arguments has submitted that the post of Lambardar had fallen vacant due to the death of Kabal Singh, Lambardar who was father of the respondent. The respondent is completely eligible for the post of Lambardar. Earlier Kabal Singh was appointed in place of his father Rattan Singh, who was Lambardar of the village. Therefore the claim of the respondent to the post of Lambardar is hereditary and he has preferential right.

8. Counsel has submitted that no proclamation was effected nor the service of the appellant has been effected by the chowkidar nor last date for filing the application for the post of Lambardar has been communicated and therefore the proper procedure as prescribed under the law has not been followed for the service of the appellant and entire procedure of proclamation is illegal. The appellant does not know the work of Lambardar at all as mentioned in the order of appellate court and as per merits, the respondent is better candidate than the appellant. The respondent owns about 5 killas of land and he also owns 16 killas of land at village Gagarmall, which is adjoining to Bachhiwind. The Commissioner has very wisely passed the order after considering all the facts and circumstances and after going through the complete record.

9. I have considered carefully the arguments advanced by both the sides and documents on record. The appellant has been appointed as lambardar by the District Collector on the basis of recommendations of Tehsildar and SDM concerned and after considering the suitability of the candidate. The only ground taken by the Ld. Commissioner for setting aside the orders of the District Collector and remanding the matter is his view that no proper proclamation was made in the village. However, it is not clear as to what is the basis for this conclusion. There are copies on the record of the directions issued by the Tehsildar Ajnala to the Patwari concerned for carrying out the proclamation in the village, statement of Chowkidar of the village regarding the proclamation in the village, the Rapat in this regard and the entry in the proceeding book of the Panchayat. On the other hand, no evidence and reason has been given for coming to the conclusion that Munadi has not been done. In view of above, I am unable to agree with the orders of Ld. Commissioner which are accordingly set aside and orders of the District Collector Amritsar are upheld.

Announced.

Order accordingly.

********