Dismissed

Kabul Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Aug 2009CWP/12381/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case concerns a public interest litigation challenging the appointment of Khub Lal as Lambardar over the petitioner, Kabul Singh. The High Court held that the revenue authorities had acted within their discretion considering factors like hereditary claims, service, and health, and the Court refused to substitute its opinion.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no merit found in the claim for reconsideration of the Lambardar's appointment.

Kabul Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

C.W.P. No.12381 of 2009 .....

¶3

Date of decision:17.8.2009

¶4

Kabul Singh

¶5

.....Petitioner v.

¶6

State of Haryana and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Present: Mr. Sharad Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

S.S. Saron, J.

¶10

After the death of Shri Issar Singh, the previous Lambardar of Village Saharanwas, Tehsil and District Rewari a proclamation was made in the Village on 23.2.2004 inviting applications for appointment of Lambardar from interested persons. Three persons, namely, Kabul Singh (petitioner), Khub Lal (respondent No.4) and Sunil Kumar (respondent No.5) applied for the post. On the basis of the material placed on record the Tehsildar recommended the name of Kabul Singh (petitioner) for appointment as Lambardar. The Assistant Collector-cum-SDM after going through the material on record also recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment as Lambardar. The petitioner appeared before the Collector, District Rewari (respondent No.3) on 6.7.2004. Respondents No.4 and 5, it is stated, did not appear before the Collector (respondent No.3). Accordingly, the Collector (respondent No.3) vide order dated 6.7.2004 (Annexure-P.1) appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the village finding him to be most suitable. Aggrieved against the order dated

¶11

C.W.P. No.12381 of 2009

¶12

[2]

¶13

6.7.2004 (Annexure-P.1), Khub Lal (respondent No.4) filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No.2). The Commissioner vide his order dated 23.11.2006 (Annexure-P.2) set aside the order dated 6.7.2004 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the District Collector, Rewari. The Commissioner in his order dated 23.11.2006 (Annexure-P.2) observed that Khub Lal (respondent No.4) had experience of the work of Lambardar as he was son of deceased Lambardar. Besides, he is an ex-serviceman and more literate than Kabul Singh (petitioner). Khub Lal (respondent No.4), it was observed, had 7.5 acres of land and his economic condition in relation to Kabul Singh (petitioner) was very good. Besides, it was observed that an ex-serviceman is to be given preference for the post of Lambardar. Accordingly, Khub Lal (respondent No.4) was appointed as Lambardar. The petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 23.11.2006 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division filed a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The learned Financial Commissioner after going through the evidence and material on record vide order dated 27.1.2009 (Annexure-P.3) observed that Kabul Singh (petitioner) though was younger in age but Khub Lal (respondent No.4) was physically fit and could discharge functions of the Lambardar effectively. Besides, it was observed that Khub Lal (respondent No.4) being son of the Lambardar would be well versed with the functioning of the post of Lambardar. It was also observed that Khub Lal (respondent No.4) was an ex-serviceman who is to be given preference in the matter of appointment. The petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 27.1.2009 (Annexure-P.3)

¶14

C.W.P. No.12381 of 2009

¶15

[3]

¶16

passed by the learned Financial Commissioner has filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is more suitable than respondent No.4 for appointment as Lambardar. It is submitted that respondent No.4 is suffering from tuberculosis. A reference has been made to the certificate dated 17.8.2006 (Annexure-P.4). Besides, it is submitted that respondent No.4 is 72 years of age whereas the petitioner is 44 years of age. It is also submitted that respondent No.4 is in illegal possession of 2 Kanals 2 Marlas of land of the panchayat. A reference has been made to the copy of demarcation report dated 4.12.2005 (Annexure-P.5). It is also submitted that Khub Lal (respondent No.4) himself had not appeared before the Collector and, therefore, was not considered and has rendered himself ineligible for consideration.

¶17

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and with the assistance of the learned counsel gone through the record. It may be noticed that in the matter of appointment of Lambardar, the choice of the District Collector is normally to be preferred and not lightly set aside unless there is some gross irregularity, perversity or patent error in the order appointing the Lambardar. Nevertheless the hearing of an appeal is a continuation of the original petition. At the time of hearing before the District Collector, Khub Lal (respondent No.4) was proceeded ex parte as he did not put in appearance. He, however, preferred an appeal against the order of the District Collector before the Commissioner. The Commissioner after considering the inter se merit of the candidates found Khub Lal (respondent No.4) to be more suitable. As already noticed it was observed that Khub Lal (respondent No.4) was son of the deceased Lambardar and he

¶18

C.W.P. No.12381 of 2009

¶19

[4]

¶20

was an ex-serviceman. Besides, he had more land than the petitioner. His economic condition was also observed to be better than the petitioner. The order of the Commissioner has been upheld by the learned Financial Commissioner.

¶21

For the appointment of the Village Headman Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (as applicable in Haryana) (`Rules' - for short) provides for matters to be considered in first appointment. Rule 15 reads as under:-

¶22

“ 15. Matters to be considered in first appointments.-- In all

¶23

first appointments of headman, regard shall be had among other

¶24

matters to--

¶25

(a) his hereditary claims; (b) extent of property in the estate possessed by the candidate.

¶26

¶27

(d) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness;

¶28

(e) the strength and importance of the community from which selection of a headman is to be made;

¶29

(f) services rendered by himself or by his family in the national movements to secure freedom of India.”

¶30

A perusal of the above provides for guidance for appointment. Hereditary claim is one of the factors which are to be taken into account for consideration for appointment as Lambardar. Besides, even the holdings of a person and services rendered to the State by the candidate himself or by

¶31

C.W.P. No.12381 of 2009

¶32

[5]

¶33

his family are necessary to be taken into consideration for appointment as Lambardar. The petitioner has been son of the deceased Lambardar.

¶34

The grounds taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that respondent No.4 is not suitable and that he is suffering from tuberculosis. A reference has been made to the certificate dated 17.8.2006 (Annexure-P.4). A perusal of the said certificate shows that upto the month of August 2006 the petitioner had been taking treatment for TB. However, there is nothing on record to show that after the issuance of the certificate in 2006, respondent No.4 continues to suffer from the disease further. As regards the demarcation report dated 4.12.2005 (Annexure-P.5) it is not shown that the same was placed before the revenue authorities at the time of consideration of appointment as Lambardar. This Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction is not to sit in appeal over the findings and conclusions reached at by the revenue authorities on the relative assessment of the inter se merit of the candidates. Neither is this Court to substitute its decision for that recorded by the revenue authorities after due consideration of the merits and demerits of the candidates. The fact that petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte before the Collector is of no consequence as he is not estopped from availing his statutory right of appeal.

¶35

In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶36

August 17, 2009. hsp

¶37

(S.S. Saron) Judge

¶38

NOTE : Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No

Kabul Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kabul Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pharas Ram Vs Collector, Ambala & Ors.

Jagdev Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Madan Lal Vs F.C. Punjab and Ors.

Smt. Surjant Kaur Vs the Financial Commissioner Appealsii Pb and Ors.

Jitmal Kapoor Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.