CWP No.7665 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.7665 of 2010 Date of decision : 6.4.2011 Bhupinder Singh ........Petitioner Vs. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present:- Mr.R.S.Manhas, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl.AG, Punjab Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4 --- AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) : This petition has been filed at the instance of Bhupinder Singh son of Arjan Singh, who has been dismissed from the post of Lambardar of Village Aimma, Revenue Estate-136, District Ropar. It seems that there was some litigation between three sisters, Paramjit Saini and Surinder Kaur on one side and Rupinderjit Saini on the other side. As per the allegations of complainant-respondent No.4, for consideration, the petitioner misused his position as Lambardar and swore a wrong affidavit with wrong facts and therefore, has misconducted himself under Rule 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 2008 (as applicable to Punjab) (for short 'the Rules'). In this regard reference has been made to Annexure P-1, the affidavit, sworn by the petitioner and Annexures R-4/1, R-4/2 and R-4/3 that are affidavits of various persons, who have been identified by the petitioner in his capacity as CWP No.7665 of 2010 -2- a Lambardar. Vide order Annexure P-8 dated 16.4.2008 the petitioner has been dismissed from the post of Lambardar. Vide order Annexure P-9 dated 30.7.2008, the Commissioner, Patiala Division accepted the appeal of the petitioner. Vide order Annexure P-10, the Financial Commissioner allowed the revision filed by respondent No.4. Annexures P-8 and P-10 have been challenged in this writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner by error projected himself as Lambardar of Village Khanpur, because he lives in that village. There is no malafide intention on the part of the petitioner so as to favour one party or take away the right of other party. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties. Annexure P-1 is an affidavit, filed in the Court of SDM, Chamkaur Sahib in proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. that were initiated in relation to land falling in Village Tapparian Dayal Singh, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar. Village Tapparian Dayal Singh, admittedly, constitute Revenue Estate-134. Village Khanpur is Revenue Estate-135 and Village Aimma is Revenue Estate-136. It transpires that the petitioner is living in Khanpur, however, he is the Lambardar of Village Aimma. The contents of affidavit Annexure P-1 read as under :- “I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under- 1. That the deponent is Lamberdar of vill.Khanpur and know both the parties. 2. That the land in question is in possession of Rupinderjit Saini from the last 1995. 3. That Paramjit Saini filed a false and frivolous complaints against Rupinderjit Saini before various police officials. 4. That there is no apprehension of breath of peace at the spot. CWP No.7665 of 2010 -3- 5. That the civil suit is pending between the parties before the Civil Court at Ropar.” The declaration given by the petitioner on oath on 1.5.2007, by way of affidavit, portion of which has been extracted above, has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court is required to judge as to whether the District Collector, Ropar passed order Annexure P-8 for the right reasons, in accordance with the rules and whether the said order has been upheld vide legally tenable order by Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab under order Annexure P-10 dated 11.2.2010. Rule 16 of the Rules deals with dismissal of headmen. Rule 20 lays down the duties of a headman. Particular reference is required to be made to Rule 20 (ix and x): “20. Duties of headman:- In addition to the duties imposed upon headman by law for any purpose, a headman shall - xxx xxx xxx (ix) assist in such manner as the Collector may from time to time direct at all crop inspections, recording of mutations, surveys, preparation of records of right, or other revenue business carried on within the limits of the estate; (x) attend the summons of all authorities having jurisdiction in the estate, assist all officers of the Government in the execution of their public duties, supply, to the best of his ability any local information which those officers may require, and generally act for the landowners, tenants and residents of the estate or sub-division of the estate in which he holds office in their relations with Government.” Perusal of provisions of above extracted portion of Rules show that CWP No.7665 of 2010 -4- a Lambardar is required to carry out the duties within the limits of the estate. Perusal of Annexure P-1 indicates that the petitioner has projected himself as Lambardar of Village Khanpur and further the fact that he knew both the parties. On the strength of that position and special knowledge, in Paras 2 and 3, statement has been given by the petitioner to the effect that land in question is in possession of Rupinderjit Saini since the year 1995 and also that Paramjit Saini has filed false and frivolous complaints against Rupinderjit Saini before various police stations. This Court has taken note of the fact that the deposition has been given by the petitioner in the capacity of Lambardar and therefore, ordinarily such a statement would carry more weight as compared to a statement of a litigating party. Perusal of Annexures R-4/1 to R-4/3 also indicates that the petitioner identified certain persons in the capacity of Lambardar of Village Khanpur. The said persons are shown to be residents of Village Khanpur. The facts not being in dispute, I am of the considered opinion that the District Collector did not commit any illegality in passing order, dismissing the petitioner from the post of Lambardar. Relevant considerations have been taken into account in context of the relevant rule viz. Rule 16 of the Rules. This Court has also taken into account the fact that the petitioner as Lambardar gave information or evidence outside the estate and therefore, clearly it is beyond the bounds of duties as provided under Rule 20. Rule 20 (Clause ix and x) is very specific in saying that the Lambardar is required to do acts within the estate. The Commissioner vide order Annexure P-9 has over looked the relevant facts and considerations. I find that Paramjit Kaur-the complainant was not heard, although Paramjit Kaur would have been relevant person to be CWP No.7665 of 2010 -5- heard, in view of the fact that it was at her instance that order Annexure P-8 has been passed by District Collector. The entire case, as set up against the petitioner, is in context of a particular case, which was best known to Paramjit Kaur or any other related parties. All that was required to be seen by the Commissioner was as to whether the petitioner had conducted himself in accordance with the duties of a Headman as provided in provisions of Rule 20 and whether the petitioner had misconducted himself in context of the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules. The Commissioner, however, has traveled beyond the said scope and has gone to consider the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., himself. This Court is of the opinion that a Lambardar should be enjoying good reputation and un-blemished image. A Lambardar is required to be trustworthy, a person of good character and sincere towards duties, who would maintain dignity of the office of Lambardar. Clearly, the petitioner has failed in conducting himself in the manner required under Rule 20. In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as considered above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order, passed by the Collector and upheld by the Financial Commissioner. Petition is accordingly dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE 6.4.2011 akm