K.S. Narang, F.C.
1. This is an appeal filed by Hardial Singh under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against an executive order of the Commissioner, communicated by him to the Collector, Bhatinda, vide his Memo No C281/H11/2/11727, dated 19111981, giving his approval to the creation of three new posts of lambardars in the village Kalipur, tehsil Mansa, district Bhatinda, under section 28 of the Act ibid, read with Land Revenue Rule 14(i) in exercise of the powers vested in the Commissioner of the Division.
2. I have heard the counsel for the parties. Shri D.S. Chahal has pressed the point that the learned Commissioner while creating three new posts of lambardars in the village had not heard the objections of the existing lambardar, Hardial Singh and his failure to do so, had vitiated the whole process of creation of the posts and all subsequent proceedings to fill up the vacancies, if any. In support of his contention, he has cited 1946L.L.T. 3, in case Re : Harkishan Singh v. The Crown, in which two Financial Commissioners, Sir James Anderson, K.C.I.E, I.C.S., and P. Marsden, Esquire, C.I.E., I.S.C. had held that before creating any additional post of lambardar, the Commissioner should first hear the existing lambardar. It is obvious from the facts of this case that no such opportunity has been afforded to the existing incumbent of the only lambardari sanctioned earlier. Nor is the order of the Commissioner a spreaking order giving any reasons for according approval to the proposal of the Collector which may show that the matter had received his consideration and this order was passed in exercise of his own judgment. The order of the Commissioner is, therefore, clearly against all principles of natural justice and has to be, therefore, struck down. The counsel for State has no reason to differ with the line of the pleadings.
3. During the pendency of the case, Shri A.S. Cheema has put an application on behalf of Bachan Singh, Niranjan Singh and Bachan Singh stressing the point that the order of the Commissioner creating additional three posts of lambardars in the village was not bad in law nor irregular because according to Jamabandi for the years 189799 Sambat, there had been previously 4 posts of lambardars, representing different Pattis, which were later withdrawn under political pressure. He has further stated that these three applicants were landholders in the village and also the candidates for the newly created posts.
4. I am of he considered view that the institution of village headman constitutes a recognise nonofficial agency in the Revenue Administration. It is also an important link between the State administration and the people. Keeping in view the administrative convenience, the Commissioner has no doubt been empowered to increase the number of posts, after consulting the Collector (Deputy Commissioner) of the district, but it is necessary for him first to hear the objections of existing lambardar of the village, if any.
5. With regard to contention of Shri Cheema, counsel for the new applicants, it is for the Collector of the district to examine their claims on their own merits and that too only when the question of creation of additional posts is finally decided in accordance with Land Revenue Act and the Rules.
6. For the reasons given above, the appeal is accepted and case is remanded to the learned Commissioner for redecision of the case after hearing the appellant, the existing lambardar, and also any other person considered relevant and interested in the matter. The parties present before me have been directed to appear before him on 26.8.1982.
