Dismissed

Ranjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandary & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Feb 2011CWP/2001/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Commissioner's order which upheld the District Collector's appointment of Respondent No. 3 as Lambardar over the Petitioner. The bench held the Collector's discretion was not arbitrary and the Commissioner's interference was illegal.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no scope for extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

Ranjit Singh Vs Financial Commissioner… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶2

CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.2001 of 2010

¶4

DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 1, 2011

¶5

RANJIT SINGH

¶6

....... PETITIONER(S)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, ANIMAL HUSBANDARU, PUNJAB & ORS.

¶9

.... RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶11

PRESENT: Mr. UK Kanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. AK Sharma, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶12

AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

¶13

1 This Civil Writ Petition has been filed in challenge to order dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, and order dated 19.11.2007 (Annexure P-5), passed by the District Collector, Nawanshahr. The petition prays for upholding order dated 15.4.2008 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.

¶14

2 The facts, in brief, are that the post of Lambardar for Village Kishan Pura, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr fell vacant on account of death of previous Lambardar; namely, Sada Ram. Petitioner-Ranjit Singh

¶15

Civil Writ Petition No.2001 of 2010

¶16

¶17

and respondent No.3-Sulakhan Singh were the main contestants. Vide order (Annexure P-5), the District Collector appointed respondent No.3 as Lambardar, while taking into account the comparative merit.

¶18

3 Before proceeding any further, the comparative merit of the candidates is required to be seen. While respondent No.3 is 40 years of age; has been educated up to Matric class; owns 39 kanals 9 marlas of land; has a residential house in the village; has the experience of Sarbrah Lambardar, being the nephew of deceased Lambardar; and is stated to be taking keen interest in development work of the village, the petitioner is 52 years of age; owns a residential house in the village and 25 kanals of land; has studied up to 10 + 2 class; has served in the Indian Navy for 11 years and is stated to be taking keen interest in development work of the village.

¶19

4 The District Collector, while considering the younger age of respondent No.3; comparative qualification and experience as Sarbrah Lambardar and the land holdings of respondent No.3, directed appointment of respondent No.3 as Lambardar.

¶20

5 Another factor which has been considered by the said authority is that a complaint had been made in regard to encroachment of Gair Mumkin passage to the extent of 40 karams x 1-1/2 feet by the petitioner. The spot was inspected by Tehsildar, Nawanshahr. The petitioner vacated the illegal possession in view of the fact that he was aspiring to become the Lambardar. A reference has been made to report dated 17.10.2007 furnished by Tehsildar, Nawanshahr. This finds mention in para-3 of order (Annexure P-5), passed by the District

¶21

Civil Writ Petition No.2001 of 2010

¶22

¶23

Collector.

¶24

6 The petitioner carried an appeal, which has been allowed while holding that there was no reason to believe that the petitioner was an encroacher. The Commissioner has further said in order (Annexure P- 6) that the petitioner has more merit and more experience and, therefore, his appeal is accepted.

¶25

7 Respondent No.3 carried an appeal before the Financial Commissioner, which has been allowed, thereby affirming the order passed by the District Collector in appointing respondent No.3. The Financial Commissioner, having gone through the record, has held that the choice of the Collector in appointment of Lambardar is required to be respected, unless some perversity in the same can be traced. In the case in hand, respondent No.3 was better qualified to be appointed as Lambardar and, therefore, there was no reason for the Commissioner to have interfered with the order passed by the District Collector.

¶26

8 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of Commissioner is legally tenable and no interference with the same was called for. The petitioner has been held to be a person with better merit and experience. Much stress has been laid on the fact that the petitioner is an ex-serviceman and, therefore, advantage of the said experience ought to be given to the petitioner.

¶27

9 I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

10 Respondent No.3 is substantially younger in age as compared to the petitioner, being 40 years of age, whereas the petitioner is 52 years

¶29

Civil Writ Petition No.2001 of 2010

¶30

¶31

of age. Respondent No.3 further has 39 kanals 9 marlas of land in the village as against the land holding of the petitioner i.e. 25 kanals. Respondent No.3 also has experience as Sarbrah Lambardar, being nephew of the deceased Lambardar. The other criteria's are by and large comparable. The discretion exercised by the District Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar has to be accepted, in case it does not suffer from arbitrariness or perverse exercise of power. In the case in hand, I am of the considered opinion that the District Collector has taken into account the relevant merit factors while directing appointment of respondent No.3 as Lambardar and, therefore, the Commissioner, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, committed an illegality in interfering with the same. I find no fault with the reasons assigned by the Financial Commissioner for upholding the order passed by the District Collector and setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner. No ground for judicial review of the order is made out.

¶32

11 In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as there is no scope for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶33

February 1, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE

¶34

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶35

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Ranjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandary & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandary & 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

Suraj B Han & Anor. Vs Commissioner, Rohtak Divn, Rohtak & Ors.

Sant Raj and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Dhanna Ram Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Manohar Singh Vs Commissioner, Jalandhar Division and Ors.

Satwinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bachittar Singh Vs Financial Commi. (a) Pb, & Ors.