The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of a respondent as Lambardar. The court found no perversity or illegality in the revenue authorities' orders and the appointment was upheld.
Petition dismissed in limine with no merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.12932 of 2009
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.12932 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 10, 2012
Swaran Singh
…..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
….Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. S.D. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhagwant Kishore Gupta, Sr. Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate for respondent No.5.
Paramjeet Singh, J (Oral)
The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 25.09.2007 (Annexure P- 9) passed by Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib appointing respondent No.5Mohinder Singh as Lambardar of village Bhambri, P.O. Charri, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and order dated 02.07.2009 (Annexure P-11) passed by Financial Commissioner, Punjab whereby the order dated 25.10.2007 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala appointing petitioner Swaran Singh has been set aside.
CWP No.12932 of 2009
-2-
Brief facts of the case are that to fill up the vacancy of Lambardar (General Category) of village Bhambri, P.O. Charri, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib, caused by the death of previous Lambardar Naranjan Singh on 14.08.2005, proclamation was made in the village. In pursuance of the proclamation two persons applied for the post of Lambardar i.e. petitioner Swaran Singh and respondent No.5-Mohinder Singh. After considering the claim of the applicants, Assistant Collector IInd Grade as well as Assistant Collector Ist Grade recommended the name of the petitioner to the Collector. The Collector appointed Swaran Singh (petitioner herein) as Lambardar of the Village vide order dated 25.05.2006 (Annexure P-6). On an appeal preferred by Mohinder Singh-respondent No.5 the order of the Collector was set aside by the Divisional Commissioner and case was remanded to the District Collector for fresh decision vide order dated 29.03.2007(Annexure P-8). The Collector re-considered the matter and after re-appreciating the merits of the candidates came to the conclusion that Mohinder Singh-respondent No.-5 is having more land, is a son of deceased Lambardar Naranjan Singh, had also been working as Sarbrah Lambardar and is an ex-serviceman, whereas the reputation of Swaran Singh is shady as a criminal case has been registered against him, appointed Mohinder Singhrespondent No.5 as Lambardar of the village vide order dated 25.09.2007 (Annexure P-9). Petitioner-Swaran Singh preferred an appeal against the order of Collector. The order of the Collector was set aside and Swaran Singh was appointed as Lambardar by Divisional Commissioner, Patiala vide order dated 27.02.2008 (Annexure P-10). Against that order, Mohinder Singh filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner and the order dated 27.02.2008 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Divisional Commissioner has
CWP No.12932 of 2009
-3-
been set aside by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab and Mohinder Singh has been appointed as Lambardar of the Village vide order dated 02.7.2009 (Annexure-11). Hence, the instant writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the revenues authorities.
The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the candidature of the petitioner has been supported by number of villagers even the Panch of the village has also supported his candidature. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade as well as Assistant Collector Ist Grade had recommended the name of the petitioner. Thereafter the Collector had appointed the petitioner as Lambardar vide order dated 25.05.2006 (Annexure P-6) . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as for respondent No.5 have stated that the earlier appointment of petitioner as Lambardar has been set aside by the Divisional Commissioner and case was remanded to the Collector for fresh decision vide order dated 29.03.2007. The Collector after re-appreciating the merits of the candidates, appointed Mohinder Singh-respondent No.5 as Lambardar.
I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and am of the view that earlier recommendations made by the Assistant Collectors IInd Grade and Ist Grade are insignificant, since the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala had set aside the order of the Collector appointing petitioner-Swaran Singh as Lambardar of the Village. Only the subsequent order after the remand is to be taken into consideration. The Collector had categorically recorded a finding that respondent No.5 is having more land, he is a son of deceased Lambardar, he is also an ex-serviceman, served in the Army for five years and his character has been found to be exemplary and
CWP No.12932 of 2009
-4-
also remained as Sarbrah Nambardar of the village, who is well conversant with the works of the Lambardar, whereas the reputation of Swaran Singhpetitioner is not clear as a criminal case has been registered against him. Otherwise also the petitioner is having less land. Only young age of the petitioner cannot be a ground to appoint him as Lambardar. Mere fact that a number of persons supported the candidature of the petitioner does not give any right to the petitioner to be appointed as Lambardar. It is the quality of the respectables not the quantity of the respectables who support the candidature which is to be taken into consideration. Besides this the service rendered to the State, experience and character of the candidate have been taken into account by the Collector while appointing Mohinder Singhrespondent No.5 as Lambardar. The petitioner has not been found at the platform on which respondent No.5 is. It is settled law that the choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly, it can only be set aside if there is any perversity or illegality in the order. Since the learned counsel failed to pointout any illegality, perversity or patent irregularity in the orders passed by the Collector which has been concurred by the Financial Commissioner while setting aside the order dated 27.02.2008 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Divisional Commissioner.
In view of above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the orders of the Collector as well as of the Financial Commissioner in judicial review.
No merit.
Dismissed in limine.
(PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE
10.01.2012 vcgarg
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed to quash the orders of selection and appointment of Lambardar.
Swaran Singh
State of Punjab and others
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
