In a writ petition challenging the appointment of another person as Lambardar, the Court upheld the appointment based on the District Collector's finding that the petitioner resides in Ratia town, not the village, citing Rule 20 requirements.
The writ petition filed by Raj Kumar was dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
Kumar Vinod 2013.07.18 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh [ 1 ]
CWP No.13354 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.13354 of 2013 Date of decision:12.07.2013
Raj Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. R.K.Nagpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. *****
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
The post of Lambardar (General Category) of village Bahmanwala, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad, fell vacant on account of death of Kundan Lal. In order to fill up the said vacancy, applications were invited. After processing the applications, Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Ratia, vide his order dated 09.03.2004, recommended name of the petitioner to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade who also recommended the name of the petitioner on 31.03.2004, but the Collector, Fatehabad, appointed respondent no.4 as Lambardar vide his order dated 29.07.2004, which was challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal. His appeal was allowed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, on 26.11.2007 and the case was remanded back to the Collector. After the remand, the Collector appointed the petitioner as Lambardar on 29.07.2008. The said order was challenged by respondent no.4 before the Commissioner, who again remanded the matter back to the Collector on 28.11.2008. The Collector,
Kumar Vinod 2013.07.18 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.13354 of 2013 [ 2 ]
after remand, appointed respondent no.4 as Lambardar vide his order dated 13.01.2009, but the said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal before the Commissioner, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Collector on 19.05.2009. After the remand, the Collector again considered the case of the parties and vide his order dated 09.07.2009, appointed the petitioner as Lambardar. This order was challenged by respondent no.4 by way of appeal before the Commissioner, but it was dismissed on 08.09.2009. Respondent no.4 filed revision before respondent no.1, which has been allowed vide his order dated 03.05.2013, which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent no.1
has wrongly recorded a finding that the petitioner is not residing in the village. He has made a reference to various documents, mentioned in the writ petition, to contend that the said documents amply prove that the petitioner is the resident of the village and not the town of Ratia. He further submitted that respondent no.4 has been involved in the theft of electricity and could not have been chosen as the headman of the village.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Respondent no.1 has discussed in detail the documents relied upon by the petitioner to prove his residence in the village and has rightly given preference to the report prepared on the spot by the Tehsildar. The perusal of the said report, which is also reproduced in the impugned order, reads thus:-
“11. A perusal of the report of Tehsildar reveals the following:
Kumar Vinod 2013.07.18 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.13354 of 2013
*****
v) The respondent has two more brothers and three of them had jointly owned agriculture land and Vinod looks after the agricultural land management of the joint holding;
vi) Vinod told him that the respondent lives with him stays in Ratia where his kids are pursuing education as the village school was only up to class 5;
vii) Vinod could not produce the Ration Card on the pretext that other members of the family were not present;
viii) In the meanwhile the respondent also appeared and informed that he had gone to Ratia in connection with some important work;
ix) Other persons present on the spot, on enquiry, revealed unanimously (all the respectables said in one voice) that only Vinod lives ordinarily in the house and the respondent lives in Ratia where he runs a Tyre shop and the agricultural activities related to the family is looked after by Vinod and the respondent visits the house very occasionally and the respondent originally resides in Tibba Colony at Ratia with his family and his kids study in DAV School, Ratia;
Thereafter the Tehsildar proceeded to Ratia and conducted an enquiry around the Tyre Shop (purportedly owned by the respondent) and the neighboring shopkeepers revealed that:
Kumar Vinod 2013.07.18 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh [ 4 ]
CWP No.13354 of 2013
Respondent no.1 also analysed the report of the Tehsildar in the
context of impartiality and observed as under:-
“The report of Tehsildar, however, allays the suspicion of being as biased and motivated as is being pleaded to be considered at least on the following counts:
These aspects and circumstances go on to establish that the Tehsildar did indeed visit the spot and the report is a true description of what he found and concluded. Mentioning 'all the respectable said in one voice' or 'the prominent people
Kumar Vinod 2013.07.18 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh [ 5 ]
CWP No.13354 of 2013
shouted in a chorus' was clearly a collocation and not reflecting literal meaning.”
I fully endorse the view taken by the Financial Commissioner in this regard and approve the same.
Insofar as the matter of theft of electricity is concerned, it has been rightly observed by the respondent no.1 that the same has already been compounded much before the matter was placed before the Court for the purpose of adjudication and cannot be given weightage in favour of the petitioner and against respondent no.4.
It is needless to mention that the availability of a person in the village seeking appointment as Lambardar is a most relevant factor in view of the nature of duties which are to be performed by the Lambardar, as enshrined in Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (as applicable to Haryana), which are reproduced as under:-
“20. Duties of headman.- In addition to the duties imposed upon headman by law for any purpose, a headman shall-
Kumar Vinod 2013.07.18 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.13354 of 2013
*****
Kumar Vinod 2013.07.18 14:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh [ 7 ]
CWP No.13354 of 2013
for military service whether combatant or non-combatant.
(xv) render all possible assistance to the village postman, while passing the night in the village, in safeguarding the cash and other valuables that he carries.”
Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid duties, if a person is not
available throughout the day in the village, there is no assistance either to the villagers or to the revenue officers and then office of the Lambardar cannot be given to such a person only to satisfy his ego or as a matter of decoration.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, finding no error in the impugned order, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge
July 12, 2013 vinod*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Dismissal of the challenge to the appointment of a Lambardar who resides in Ratia is correct when Rule 20 requires continuous presence in the village for revenue duties.
Whether the Tehsildar's finding that the petitioner does not ordinarily reside in the village is supported by evidence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raj Kumar
The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana
Respondent no.4
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
