IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.16655 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 09, 2011 MANGAT RAM ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT:Mr. Gautam Divan, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Jasdev Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Mangat Ram son of Asha Ram (petitioner) was appointed as Lambardar for Village Rasulpur, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar. Ram Kumar son of Phool Chand (respondent No.3) and another contestant carried an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, which has been allowed and respondent No.3 has been appointed as Lambardar. The petitioner carried a revision before the Financial Commissioner, which has been dismissed. Orders dated 28.10.2009 (Annexure P-3) and 7.7.2010 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Commissioner and Civil Writ Petition No.16655 of 2010 2 the Financial Commissioner, respectively, are under challenge at the instance of the petitioner, on the ground that respondent No.3 is an accused in FIR No. 483 dated 20.11.2006 under Sections 323, 147, 149, 506, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Jagadhri (Annexure P-1). The trial is going on and is at the stage when prosecution evidence is to be taken. In this regard, certified copy of order dated 16.12.2010, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, has been filed in court today, which is taken on record. 2 Learned counsel for respondent No.3 contends that the FIR (Annexure P-1) cannot come in the way of appointment of respondent No.3 as Lambardar, for the reason that the complainant has sworn an affidavit to the effect that it was only on the basis of suspicion that the petitioner came to be involved as an accused in the criminal case. 3 I have considered the rival contentions. 4 A perusal of the order (Annexure P-4), passed by the Financial Commissioner, indicates that in last but one para, the factum of pendency of the FIR has been mentioned. At the stage of consideration, in the last para of the order (Annexure P-4), however, the said aspect of the matter has not been considered to see whether Civil Writ Petition No.16655 of 2010 3 respondent No.3 would be suitable to discharge the functions of Lambardar, as provided under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, as applicable to Haryana. 5 This Court has considered the viability of appointing a person as Lambardar, in case he is involved in a criminal case, while dealing with CWP 1143 of 2011 (Dharam Pal v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others), decided on 21.1.2011. The following has been said in paras 12 to 16:- “12. The petitioner was involved in a crime of serious nature under Section 302/34 IPC and was taken in custody, and convicted after trial. In such circumstances clearly, case of the petitioner would fall under Rule 16(ii)(a). 13. The Division Bench of this Court considered the issue in 2005(2) PLR 306, Jog Dhian vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others. Following is the relevant portion from Para 13 of the judgment:- “........ As mentioned above, it is admitted position, so specifically averred in the writ petition, that the petitioner was involved in a murder case, even though it is stated that the was acquitted, and which order was upheld by the High Court. It may be true that once an accused is acquitted on a criminal charge framed against him, even though by giving benefit of doubt, he is presumed to be innocent but at the same time, such a person cannot command respect from the public as, surely, the people cannot have much confidence and rely upon a person, who, even though, might have been acquitted but who has been tried for murder and remained in Civil Writ Petition No.16655 of 2010 4 custody, either in judicial or police....” 14. The duties of a headman have been provided under Rule 20 of the Rules. Rule 20 when extracted reads as under:- “20. Duties of headman.- In addition to the duties imposed upon headman by law for any purpose, a headman shall— (i)collect by due date all land revenue and all sums, recoverable as land revenue from the estate, or sub-division of an estate in which he holds office, and pay the same personally or by revenue money order or by remittance of currency notes through the post [or at places where treasury business is conducted by the {State Bank of India or any Scheduled Bank as notified by the State Government from time to time}, by cheque on a local Bank] at the place and time appointed in that behalf to the Revenue Officer or assignee empowered by Government to receive it; (ii)collect the rents and other income of the common land, and the account for them to the persons entitled thereto; (iii)acknowledge every payment received by him in the books of the landowners and tenants; (iv)defray joint expenses of the estate and render accounts thereof as may be duly required of him; (v)report to the Tehsildar the death or any assignee of land revenue or Government pensioner residing in the estate, or the marriage or re-marriage of a female drawing a family pension and residing in the estate, or the absence of any such person for more than a year]; (vi)report to the Tehsildar and Collector all encroachments on and injury to the roads, public streets and Government, Nazul and Civil Writ Petition No.16655 of 2010 5 Panchayat land;] (vii)report any injury to Government buildings made over to his charge; (viii)carry out, to the best of his ability, any orders that he may receive from the Collector requiring him to furnish information or to assist in providing on payment supplies or means of transport for troops or for officers of Government on duty; (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; (xi)report to the Patwari any outbreak of disease among animals [or human beings]; (xii)report to the Patwari the deaths of any rightholders in their estates; (xiii)report any breach or cut in a Government irrigation canal or channel to the nearest canal officer, or canal Patwari; (xiv)under the general or special directions of the Collector, assist by the use of his personal influence and otherwise all officers of Government and other persons, duly authorised by the Collector, in the collection and enrolment of recruits for Civil Writ Petition No.16655 of 2010 6 military service whether combatant or non-combatant; (xv)render all possible assistance to the village postman, while passing the night in the village, in safeguarding the cash and other valuables that he carried.” 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the context of provisions in Rules and the case law, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner does not call for any interference. A person such as petitioner who was involved in a case under Section 302 IPC cannot command any respect from public as, surely, the public cannot have confidence on the petitioner and rely on him. 16. Nature of duties as given out in Rule 20 extracted above require active association of the Lambardar with the residents of the area. The nature of duties requires that Lambardar knows the residents in the estate for carrying out his jobs. Without commanding respect and regard of the residents, the duties cannot be carried out. Surely, a person who has been tried for an offence as serious as under Section 302 IPC, cannot serve the purpose of the post held by him as he would be looked upon with suspicion. In such circumstances, I find that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, dismissing the petitioner, was not required to be reviewed, even though the petitioner has been acquitted, considering mandate of rule particularly under Rule 16(ii)(a) of the Rules.” Civil Writ Petition No.16655 of 2010 7 6 Considering the above, the petition is allowed. Order (Annexure P-4), passed by the Financial Commissioner is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Financial Commissioner to re-adjudicate after taking into account the fact that respondent No.3 is involved in a criminal case and the trial is going on, in the context of the judgment to which reference has been given hereinabove. The Financial Commissioner is requested to finally dispose of the case by 25.5.2011, in view of the delay already caused in appointment of Lambardar for Village Rasulpur. 7 The parties shall appear before the Financial Commissioner on 22.3.2011. 8 Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Reader. March 09, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?