Punjab Land Revenue Rules

Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Service to nation -- Respondent No.5 had served in Indian Army for the period of more than 15 years, he had participated in three wars in the years 1961, 1965 and 1971 and was awarded Shauraya Chakara for his bravery shown at the time of those wars -- Father of the respondent No.5, who was working as a Lambardar and at whose death vacancy had occurred, also served the nation by participating in the war of independence and the second world war -- Brother of the respondent No.5 also served the nation and retired as a Captain from the Indian Army -- Paternal uncle of respondent No.5 also served the Indian National Army -- In view of the service rendered for the nation by the family of respondent No.5, decoration given to him, by appointing him as a Lambardar of the village, is perfectly justified. Tarsem Singh v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 396 (P&H DB).

Rule 16 – Appointment of Lambardar -- Comparative merits -- Respondent No.3 is 40 years of age, whereas the petitioner is 52 years of age -- Respondent No. 3 has 39 kanals 9 marlas of land and petitioner is having 25 kanals -- Respondent No.3 also has experience as Sarbrah Lambardar, being nephew of the deceased Lambardar -- Other criteria's are by and large comparable – District Collector has taken into account the relevant merit factors while directing appointment of respondent No.3 as Lambardar -- Order passed is perfectly justified -- So far as merits of both the candidates are concerned, in other segments, the respondent No. 3 has an edge. Ranjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 399 (P&H DB).

Rule 16 – Appointment of Lambardar -- Unauthorised occupation – Ex-serviceman -- Allegation against the appellant that he was found in unauthorised occupation of the land, which was reserved for a passage during consolidation proceedings – Appellant with a view to remove that evidence, put up earth in the land measuring 1 ft. x 40 ft. -- Merely because the appellant was an Ex-Serviceman, the benefit of appointment cannot be given to him. Ranjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 399 (P&H DB).