Skip to content


Ranjit Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner and anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Property

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Judge

Reported in

(2009)155PLR708

Appellant

Ranjit Singh

Respondent

Financial Commissioner and anr.

Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Excerpt:


.....between the two full bench judgments. both the full bench judgments have been delivered on the assumption that joginder singhs case dealt with question of alienation whereas pritam singhs case had decided the question concerning succession. even on fact in joginder singhs case the issue was validity of alienation by consent decree by a father to his two sons, which was challenged by third son, whereas in pritam singhs case the question of nature of property in hands of sons on death of their father had arisen for purposes of assessment of estate duty. in pritam singhs case the property in the hands of the sons was held to be coparcenary property and only 1/3rd of property belonging to deceased father was considered eligible for estate duty. therefore, there was no question of alienation in pritam singhs case. - on comparison he has found mohan lal more suitable candidate for'the post of lambardar being young, with good, character and educated. we find no merit in the appeal and are satisfied that no case for interference under clause x of the letters patent is made out......taken by the statutory authorities.3. we have heard learned counsel at a considerable length. it may be true that the learned single judge committed factual error while passing the order that on the date of considering for the position of lambardar he was facing prosecution. as a matter of fact the petitioner was acquitted on 28.3.2000 and consideration had taken place on 15.2.2006. however, the aforesaid mistake has not persuaded us to reach a different conclusion in our ultimate view because the case of the appellant-petitioner has been rightly considered when we examine the order in the light of the rule 15 of the punjab land revenue rules. the district collector has rightly appointed mohan lal as lambardar vide his order dated 17.10.2007 by taking into account the factum of prosecution in case fir no. 258 dated 10.10.1999 registered under sections 148, 149, 32 and 302 ipc. he has opined that for the position of lambardar, registration of a criminal case would be a relevant factor and it would not be justified to appoint him. on comparison he has found mohan lal more suitable candidate for'the post of lambardar being young, with good, character and educated. it was further.....

Judgment:


M.M. Kumar, J.

1. This is an appeal filed under clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 3.2.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing C.W.P. No. 1679 of 2009 filed by the appellant-petitioner. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground of involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case. The appellant-petitioner was first considered on 15.2.2006 which order was set aside by the District Collector on 30.6.2006 and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade who again appointed the appellant-petitioner on the post of Lambardar. However, the District Collector vide order dated 17.7.2007 set aside that order by taking into account the registration of a criminal case against the appellant-petitioner. The aforesaid order has been upheld by the Financial Commissioner on 20.2.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-petitioner approached this Court and his petition has been dismissed.

2. The learned Single Judge has refused to interfere in the order passed by the statutory authorities holding that the petitioner was facing prosecution when his case for appointment was considered and therefore no fault could be found in the view taken by the statutory authorities.

3. We have heard learned Counsel at a considerable length. It may be true that the learned Single Judge committed factual error while passing the order that on the date of considering for the position of Lambardar he was facing prosecution. As a matter of fact the petitioner was acquitted on 28.3.2000 and consideration had taken place on 15.2.2006. However, the aforesaid mistake has not persuaded us to reach a different conclusion in our ultimate view because the case of the appellant-petitioner has been rightly considered when we examine the order in the light of the Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. The District Collector has rightly appointed Mohan Lal as Lambardar vide his order dated 17.10.2007 by taking into account the factum of prosecution in case FIR No. 258 dated 10.10.1999 registered under Sections 148, 149, 32 and 302 IPC. He has opined that for the position of Lambardar, registration of a criminal case would be a relevant factor and it would not be justified to appoint him. On comparison he has found Mohan Lal more suitable candidate for'the post of Lambardar being young, with good, character and educated. It was further found that he was not a defaulter of Electricity Board or any financial corporation as was alleged by the appellant-petitioner. We are further of the view that Rule 15 of the Rules would not exclude consideration of a registration of criminal case alleging commission of an offence inter-alia under Section 302 IPC although the appellant-petitioner has been acquitted. We find no merit in the appeal and are satisfied that no case for interference under clause X of the Letters Patent is made out. Dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //