Dismissed¶40

Satpal v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC3 May 2025CWP/13075/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lambardar (BC) appointment dispute; village Bapoli, District Panipat; hereditary claim ultra vires the Constitution; Karnail Singh 1973 PLJ 676 relied upon; comparative merit (younger age, higher education, recommendation by Tehsildar/SDO lower revenue officials); certiorari under Articles 226/227 against Divisional Commissioner order 17.11.2021 (Annexure P-5) and Financial Commissioner order 06.05.2023 (Annexure P-6); revision petitions ROR-284/2015-16 and ROR-114-2022; CWP-13075-2023 (O/M); Harsh Bunger, J.; decided 03.05.2025; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed and respondent No. 4's appointment as Lambardar (BC) of village Bapoli stands upheld. ¶40

Satpal Vs State of Haryana and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed and respondent No. 4's appointment as Lambardar (BC) of village Bapoli stands upheld.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the appointment of Lambardar made on the basis of hereditary claim is constitutionally sustainable, having been held ultra vires the Constitution; specifically whether the petitioner was rightly appointed as Lambardar (BC) of village Bapoli on his hereditary claim. +2 more

¶32

Court's answer

The petitioner was wrongly appointed as Lambardar (BC) of village Bapoli on the ground of his hereditary claim, such appointments having already been held ultra vires the Constitution by a Division Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh, 1973 PLJ 676; therefore the Collector's order was rightly set aside by the Divisional Commissioner.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No. 4 is more meritorious than the petitioner in terms of his age and educational qualification, and his candidature was recommended by the lower revenue officials, which has persuasive value.

¶38

Key takeaways

There is no illegality or perversity in the Divisional Commissioner's order dated 17.11.2021 (Annexure P-5) setting aside the Collector's order dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure P-4) and appointing respondent No. 4; the Financial Commissioner affirmed the Divisional Commissioner's order.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Harsh Bunger, J., oral, decided 03.05.2025) in CWP-13075-2023 dismissed Satpal's writ petition under Articles 226/227 seeking certiorari against (i) the Divisional Commissioner, Karnal's order dated 17.11.2021 (Annexure P-5) setting aside the Collector, Panipat's order dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure P-4) and appointing respondent No. 4 (Rajesh Kumar) as Lambardar (BC) of village Bapoli, District Panipat, and (ii) the Financial Commissioner, Haryana's order dated 06.05.2023 (Annexure P-6) dismissing the petitioner's revision petition ROR-114-2022. Relying on Karnail Singh Versus State of Haryana, 1973 PLJ 676 (Division Bench), the court held that appointment of Lambardar on the basis of hereditary claim is ultra vires the Constitution and that the petitioner was wrongly appointed on that ground; respondent No. 4 was found more meritorious in age and education, with his candidature recommended by lower revenue officials; no illegality or perversity was found in Annexure P-5.

¶1

-12025:PHHC:058200

¶2

CWP-13075-2023 (O/M)

¶3

217 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-13075-2023 (O/M) Date of decision : 03.05.2025

¶5

Satpal ...... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER

¶9

Present :- Mr. Ajit Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Kapil Bansal, DAG Haryana.

¶11

Mr. Minkal Rawal, Advocate for respondent No. 4.

¶12

-.-.-

¶13

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Petitioner (Satpal) has filed the instant civil writ petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 17.11.2021 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal (in short 'Divisional Commissioner') and also order dated 06.05.2023 (Annexure P-6), passed by learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana (in short 'Financial Commissioner').

¶15

Briefly, on demise of Shri Dharam Singh, previous Lambardar (BC) of village Bapoli, District Panipat, proceedings were initiated for filling up the aforesaid vacancy, wherein the petitioner (Satpal) and respondent No. 4 (Rajesh Kumar) were also the candidates. The Tehsildar as well as SDO (C), Samalakha recommended the candidature of respondent No. 4 (Rajesh Kumar) for the aforesaid

¶16

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2025.05.13 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

-22025:PHHC:058200

¶18

CWP-13075-2023 (O/M)

¶19

vacancy and the matter was forwarded to learned Collector, Panipat (in short 'Collector').

¶20

2.1 Learned Collector, vide order dated 31.03.2014 (Annexure P-1), appointed petitioner as Lambardar (BC) of village Bapoli primarily on his hereditary claim as his father was previous Lambardar.

¶21

2.2 Learned Collector's order dated 31.03.2014 (Annexure P-1) was challenged by respondent No. 4 (Rajesh Kumar) by filing an appeal before learned Divisional Commissioner, however, the same was dismissed, vide order dated 30.03.2016 (Annexure P-2).

¶22

2.3 Still aggrieved, respondent No. 4 (Rajesh Kumar) preferred a revision petition (ROR-284/2015-16) before learned Financial Commissioner, which came to be allowed, vide order dated 01.04.2019 (Annexure P-3), whereby the orders passed by learned Collector as well as learned Divisional Commissioner were set aside and the matter was remanded to learned Collector for deciding the same afresh.

¶23

2.2 Upon remand, learned Collector, vide order dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure P-4), appointed petitioner as Lambardar (BC) primarily on the ground that the petitioner was earlier appointed as Lambardar (BC), vide order dated 31.03.2014 (Annexure P-1) and since then he has been doing work of lambardari.

¶24

2.3 Feeling aggrieved against learned Collector's order dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure P-4), respondent No. 4 (Rajesh Kumar) preferred an appeal before learned Divisional Commissioner, who vide order dated 17.11.2021 (Annexure P-5), set aside learned Collector's order dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure P-4) and appointed respondent No. 4

¶25

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA2025.05.13 17:17 as Lambardar (BC) of village Bapoli by observing that respondent No. 4 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

-32025:PHHC:058200

¶27

CWP-13075-2023 (O/M)

¶28

is younger in age and more educated than the petitioner and also that the name of respondent No. 4 was recommended by the lower revenue officials.

¶29

2.4 Feeling dis-satisfied, the petitioner preferred a revision petition (ROR-114-2022) before learned Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed, vide order dated 06.05.2023 (Annexure P-6).

¶30

In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant civil writ petition before this Court, for the relief(s), as noticed hereinabove.

¶31

Heard.

¶32

In the instant case, respondent No. 4 was appointed as Lambardar (BC) of village Bapoli by learned Collector primarily on the ground that his father was previous Lambardar (BC) of village Bapoli and, therefore, he had hereditary claim. It needs no reiteration that the appointment of Lambardar on the basis of hereditary claim has already been held to be ultra vires the Constitution by a Division Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh Versus State of Haryana etc., 1973 PLJ 676 .

¶33

Respondent No. 4 (Rajesh Kumar) has been appointed as Lambardar (BC) of village Bapoli by learned Divisional Commissioner by considering him younger and more educated than the petitioner. Furthermore, the name of respondent No. 4 was also recommended for appointment as Lambardar (BC) by the lower revenue officials, which has persuasive value.

¶34

Considering the totality of circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioner was wrongly appointed as Lambardar (BC) of village Bapoli on the ground of his hereditary claim, which has SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA2025.05.13 17:17 already been held to be ultra vires the Constitution, therefore, learned I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

-42025:PHHC:058200

¶36

CWP-13075-2023 (O/M)

¶37

Collector's order was rightly set aside by learned Divisional Commissioner.

¶38

That apart, respondent No. 4 is more meritorious than the petitioner in terms of his age and educational qualification and also considering the fact that his name was recommended by lower revenue officials.

¶39

In view of the above, I find no illegality or perversity in the order dated 17.11.2021 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, whereby learned Collector's order dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure P-4) was set aside and respondent No. 4 was appointed as Lambardar of village Bapoli. Order passed by learned Divisional Commissioner has been affirmed by learned Financial Commissioner.

¶40

Resultantly, the instant civil writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶41

Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand closed.

¶42

(HARSH BUNGER) JUDGE

¶43

03.05.2025 sjks

¶44

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

¶45

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2025.05.13 17:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 17.11.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by Divisional Commissioner setting aside the Collector's order dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure P-4) and appointing respondent No. 4 as Lambardar (BC), together with order dated 06.05.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by Financial Commissioner dismissing petitioner's revision petition ROR-114-2022; both sought to be set aside via writ of certiorari¶14
Commissioner, Karnal Division, Karnal ('Divisional Commissioner'); Financial Commissioner, Haryana · 17.11.2021; 06.05.2023
Prior proceeding
On demise of previous Lambardar (BC) Shri Dharam Singh of village Bapoli, District Panipat, proceedings were initiated to fill the vacancy; petitioner Satpal and respondent No. 4 Rajesh Kumar were candidates¶15
Prior proceeding
Tehsildar and SDO (C), Samalakha recommended respondent No. 4; matter forwarded to Collector, Panipat¶19
Prior proceeding
Collector appointed petitioner as Lambardar (BC) vide order dated 31.03.2014 (Annexure P-1), primarily on hereditary claim as his father was previous Lambardar¶20
Prior proceeding
Respondent No. 4 appealed to Divisional Commissioner; appeal dismissed vide order dated 30.03.2016 (Annexure P-2)¶21
Prior proceeding
Respondent No. 4's revision petition (ROR-284/2015-16) before Financial Commissioner allowed vide order dated 01.04.2019 (Annexure P-3), setting aside Collector's and Divisional Commissioner's orders and remanding to Collector for fresh decision¶22
Prior proceeding
Upon remand, Collector re-appointed petitioner as Lambardar (BC) vide order dated 26.09.2019 (Annexure P-4)¶23
Prior proceeding
Respondent No. 4 appealed again; Divisional Commissioner, vide order dated 17.11.2021 (Annexure P-5), set aside the Collector's order dated 26.09.2019 and appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar (BC)¶24
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's revision petition (ROR-114-2022) before Financial Commissioner dismissed vide order dated 06.05.2023 (Annexure P-6)¶29

Satpal v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpal v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Singh Yadav and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Veera Singh Alias Balvir Singh and Others Vs Financial Commissioner Appeals Punjab and Others

Jai Parkash Dhingra Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Nishan Singh and Others Vs Superintending Canal Officer and Others

Sawera Travels Pvt. Ltd. through Its M.D. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Bishamber Dass Vs Finance Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab and Others