IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11321 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 28, 2011 Satnam Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr. B.S. Thind, Advocate, for respondent No.6. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab. 2. When the matter was heard on 22.2.2011, the following order was passed:- CWP No.11321 of 2009 [2] “For village Chuchak Wind, Patti Maha Singh Wala, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur, the post of Lambardar fell vacant on the death of Pritam Singh, Lambardar. Village has three Patties namely Patti Maha Singh Wala, Patti Lal Shah and Patti Kandhara. The comparative merit of the petitioner viz-a-viz re- spondent no. 6 is as under:- Petitioner is 22 years of age, 10+2 pass, owner of 56 ka- nals of land in Patti Maha Singh Wala (as per the case of re- spondent no. 6, petitioner owns 33 kanals 12 marlas). Respondent no. 6 is 34 years of age; 10th class pass; owns 5 kanals 2 marlas of land in Patti Maha Singh Wala and 49 kanals in Patti Lal Shah. Respondent no. 6 is the grand-son of Lambardar of village Patti Lal Shah. The Collector, vide order Annexure P-1 directed ap- pointment of Balwant Singh-respondent no. 6 as Lambardar of the village. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner raised a specific issue stating that the respon- dent was required to have land in the same revenue estate i.e. Patti Maha Singh Wala. The respondent, however, has major land holding in another estate i.e. Patti Lal Shah. This issue was specifically raised, as noticed in para no. 4 of or- der Annexure P-1. The issue, however, has not been dealt with in the operative part of the order. The respondent no. 6 carried a disability, which has not been considered, causing manifest injustice. Learned counsel further has argued that in terms of provisions of Rule 15 and 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, land holding in the same revenue estate is a relevant criteria because the land holding is a guarantee/se- curity for recovery of land revenue. Learned counsel for respondent no. 6 has argued that the respondent no. 6 was appointed by District Collector. The petitioner carried an appeal. Considering the fact that the petitioner has substantially more land than the re- spondent in Patti Maha Singh Wala, the appeal has been ac- cepted and the petitioner appointed as Lambardar. The respondent carried an appeal before the Financial Commissioner. Order of Collector has been upheld, how- ever, without considering the issue raised on behalf of the petitioner, as noticed above. There is nothing available on record to suggest that Patti Maha Singh Wala is a different revenue estate from Patti Lal Shah. It would be a relevant issue to be considered. As per Annexure R-1 filed by District Collector with a short affidavit, Village Chuchak Wind has been shown as Had- bast No. 356. CWP No.11321 of 2009 [3] This case is adjourned to 28.02.2011 with a direction to District Collector, Ferozepur to clearly indicate whether Patti Maha Singh Wala and Patti Lal Shah are two different Estates “in terms of definition of Estate as provided under sub-section 1 of Section 3 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.” Copy of the order be given to Sh. G.S. Attariwala, Addl. A.G., Punjab to enable him to seek clarification.” 3. The Deputy Commissioner –cum- District Collector, Ferozepur, has filed an affidavit indicating that Patti Maha Singh Wala and Patti Lal Shah fall in the same ‘estate’ in context of definition of ‘estate’ as provided under Section 3(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. 4. It has been pointed out that there is a requirement of different Lambardars in Patti Maha Singh Wala and Patti Lal Shah. The present case relates to the appointment of Lambardar for Patti Maha Singh Wala, village Chuchak Wind, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur. In the said Patti area, respondent No.6 owns only 5 kanal and 2 marlas of land. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in terms of Rule 16(i)(c) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, a headman can be dismissed when he ceases to be a landlord in the estate or sub division of the estate in respect of which he holds the office of headman. In this view of the matter, the land holding in a particular sub estate is required to be CWP No.11321 of 2009 [4] considered and seen. Petitioner owns substantially more land than respondent No.6 in Patti Maha Singh Wala for which Lambardar is to be appointed. 6. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel. 7. The Commissioner passed the Order (dated 15.1.2008, Annexure P-3) setting aside the Order (dated 19.9.2006, Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector in context of land holding in Patti Maha Singh Wala, and other circumvening circumstances. The said aspect of the matter however has not been considered by the Financial Commissioner at all. 8. I have also taken note of the fact that the petitioner is younger in age and more educated as compared to respondent No.6. So far as service to the State by himself or by his family; personal influence; character; ability etc. in terms of provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules are concerned, the petitioner as also respondent No.6 are equal as none of them has made a mark in either of the fields. The Financial Commissioner, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, was required to consider the aspect of age, education qualification and land holding in the Patti for CWP No.11321 of 2009 [5] which the Lambardar was required to be appointed. Since the order (dated 24.2.2009, Annexure P-5) of the Financial Commissioner is silent in relevant aspects in view of which the Commissioner interfered in appellate jurisdiction, the order of Financial Commissioner viz. Annexure P-5 is rendered illegal and non-speaking on relevant aspects of the matter. 9. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and Order dated 24.2.2009 (Annexure P-5) is hereby quashed. 10. The case is remanded back to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, to enable him to consider the case in view of what has been said above. 11. The petitioner and respondent No.6 shall appear before the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab, on 17.3.2011. The Financial Commissioner is requested to dispose of the matter by 26.5.2011 in view of the delay already caused. 12. Copy of the order be given under signatures of Reader of the Bench. (AJAI LAMBA) February 28, 2011 JUDGE avin CWP No.11321 of 2009 [6] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CWP No.11321 of 2009 [7] “For village Chuchak Wind, Patti Maha Singh Wala, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur, the post of Lambardar fell vacant on the death of Pritam Singh, Lambardar. Village has three Patties namely Patti Maha Singh Wala, Patti Lal Shah and Patti Kandhara. The comparative merit of the petitioner viz-a-viz re- spondent no. 6 is as under:- Petitioner is 22 years of age, 10+2 pass, owner of 56 ka- nals of land in Patti Maha Singh Wala (as per the case of re- spondent no. 6, petitioner owns 33 kanals 12 marlas). Respondent no. 6 is 34 years of age; 10th class pass; owns 5 kanals 2 marlas of land in Patti Maha Singh Wala and 49 kanals in Patti Lal Shah. Respondent no. 6 is the grand-son of Lambardar of village Patti Lal Shah. The Collector, vide order Annexure P-1 directed ap- pointment of Balwant Singh-respondent no. 6 as Lambardar of the village. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner raised a specific issue stating that the respon- dent was required to have land in the same revenue estate i.e. Patti Maha Singh Wala. The respondent, however, has major land holding in another estate i.e. Patti Lal Shah. This issue was specifically raised, as noticed in para no. 4 of or- der Annexure P-1. The issue, however, has not been dealt with in the operative part of the order. The respondent no. 6 carried a disability, which has not been considered, causing manifest injustice. Learned counsel further has argued that in terms of provisions of Rule 15 and 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, land holding in the same revenue estate is a relevant criteria because the land holding is a guarantee/se- curity for recovery of land revenue. Learned counsel for respondent no. 6 has argued that the respondent no. 6 was appointed by District Collector. The petitioner carried an appeal. Considering the fact that the petitioner has substantially more land than the re- spondent in Patti Maha Singh Wala, the appeal has been ac- cepted and the petitioner appointed as Lambardar. The respondent carried an appeal before the Financial Commissioner. Order of Collector has been upheld, how- ever, without considering the issue raised on behalf of the petitioner, as noticed above. There is nothing available on record to suggest that Patti Maha Singh Wala is a different revenue estate from Patti Lal Shah. It would be a relevant issue to be considered. As per Annexure R-1 filed by District Collector with a short affidavit, Village Chuchak Wind has been shown as Had- bast No. 356. CWP No.11321 of 2009 [8] This case is adjourned to 28.02.2011 with a direction to District Collector, Feroepur to clearly indicate whether Patti Maha Singh Wala and Patti Lal Shah are two different Es- tates “in terms of definition of Estate as provided under sub- section 1 of Section 3 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.” Copy of the order be given to Sh. G.S. Attariwala, Addl. A.G., Punjab to enable him to seek clarification.”