Gurdip Singh Vs Financial Commissioner, Punjab (Revenue)and Others

APURVA 2025.07.18 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

Petitioner (Gurdip Singh) has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari to set aside order dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Collector, Hoshiarpur; order dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar; and order dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab.

¶3

¶4

Village Jhinger Kalan, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur

¶5

Jhinger Kalan, vide order dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure P-3).

¶6

dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure P-3)

¶7

APURVA 2025.07.18 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶8

.

¶9

2.4 Still dissatisfied, petitioner (Gurdip Singh) filed a revision petition (ROR No.663 of 2022) before the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure P-7).

¶10

In the present case, the learned Collector, Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure P-3), appointed respondent No.4 (Raminderjit Singh) as Lambardar, upon finding him to be a suitable candidate. While assessing the comparative merits and demerits of the candidates, the learned Collector observed that the petitioner (Gurdip Singh) was about 45 years of age (at the relevant time), stated to be in poor health, educated up to the 12^th standard, and owner of 6 Kanals of land. It was further noticed that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case bearing FIR No.98 dated 21.08.1999, registered under Sections 324, 379-B, 427, and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Dasuya; however, he was acquitted on 12.09.2002.

¶11

4.1 As regards respondent No.4 (Raminderjit Singh), it had been observed that he was in good health, about 27 years of age (at the relevant time), holds a degree of B.Sc. (Agriculture), and owner of 32 Kanals of land. It was further noted that his name was recommended by the lower revenue authorities.

¶12

4.2 Considering the aforesaid factors, respondent No.4 (Raminderjit Singh) was appointed as Lambardar by the learned Collector,

¶13

APURVA 2025.07.18 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶14

Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure P-3). The said appointment was subsequently affirmed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar, vide order dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-5) as well as by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, vide order dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure P-7). All the revenue authorities having recorded their reasons in support of their decision(s).

¶15

In a process of selection, perceptions as to the comparative merits and suitability of a candidate, would vary from person to person and, therefore, from Court to Court. It is an established principle that judicial review of such an order is confined to an appraisal of the impugned order so as to discern whether it is perverse, arbitrary or violates the provisions of any statutory enactment.

¶16

In the case in hand, the authorities below have consistently held in favour of respondent No.4 (Raminderjit Singh) and having gone through the paper book as well as order dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Collector, Hoshiarpur; order dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar; and order dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, I find no compelling reason to interfere with the appointment of respondent No.4 (Raminderjit Singh) as Lambardar of Village Jhinger Kalan. Resultantly, the instant writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶17

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

¶18

APURVA 2025.07.18 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

Gurdip Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab (Revenue)and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdip Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab (Revenue)and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Maya Ram and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Kamaljit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Raj Kumar Bali Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Nirmal Singh and Others Vs Superintending Canal Officer and Others

Renu Dutt Sharma Vs Dav College Managing Committee and Another

Gian Kaur Vs Financial Commissioner Punjab and Others