Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2003) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 10302 = 2004 L.A.R. 252
Decided on 18.12.2003
For the Petitioner: Ms. Jagdeep Bains, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. G.P. Vashist, Advocate.
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887) – Section 16 – Lambardari Case – Appointment of lambardar – Choice of District Collector should not ordinarily be disturbed unless there are any compelling reasons to do so, or there is any infirmity in that order.
In the Lambardari proceedings it is more or less an accepted precedent that the choice of the District Collector should not ordinarily be disturbed unless there are any compelling reasons to do so, or there is any infirmity in that order. The petitioner has not been able to point out even a single such shortcoming which may warrant interference with the concurrent findings of the District Collector and as well as the Divisional Commissioner. Accordingly both the orders are upheld and the revision petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merit.
(Para 2)
ORDER
Mr. R.P.S. Pawar, I.A.S., Financial Commissioner. – This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 26.2.1999 of the Divisional Commissioner Faridkot and as well as the order dated 28.7.1998 of the District Collector, Bhatinda under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The District Collector has appointed the respondent Shri Jagsir Singh as Lambardar of the village Kalalwala primarily on the ground that his candidature has been recommended by the Lower Revenue Officers i.e. the Tehsildar and as well as S.D.O. Civil Talwandi Sabo. In appeal the Divisional Commissioner, after discussing comparative merits of both the candidate has dismissed the same and upheld the order of the District Collector. It will be relevant to refer to the well-based order of the Commissioner where the operative portion reads as follow :-
”I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have carefully perused the record placed on the file. The impugned order of the Collector is a well-reasoned order and I find no valid reason to interfere with the same. Shri Jagsir Singh who has been appointed as Lambardar by the Collector is a young and energetic man who has studied upto Matric. The appellant is totally illiterate, a factum, which was proved when a paper typed in Punjabi, was given to him for reading in this court and he was unable to read it. Shri Jagsir Singh owns adequate land to provide security for Government dues and his name was also recommended by the Tehsildar and SDM. Keeping these factors in view, I am of the considered opinion that the decision of the Collector warrants no interference and accordingly this appeal is rejected”.
2. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced orally and as well as in the written by both the counsel. In the Lambardari proceedings it is more or less an accepted precedent that the choice of the District Collector should not ordinarily be disturbed unless there are any compelling reasons to do so, or there is any infirmity in that order. The petitioner has not been able to point out even a single such shortcoming which may warrant my interference with the concurrent findings of the District Collector and as well as the Divisional Commissioner. Accordingly both the orders are upheld and the revision petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merit.
To be communicated.
Revision dismissed.
********