Dismissed¶14

Ramjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Apr 2025CWP/8823/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Lambardar appointment; Village Saido Patti; Collector Hoshiarpur; Divisional Commissioner Jalandhar; non-speaking order; Financial Commissioner Punjab; Tarsem Lal; Scheduled Caste; choice of Collector not to be lightly interfered with; two views possible; writ petition dismissed; pending applications closed; 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 757; 2016(1) RCR (Civil) 273. Disposition: writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

In the matter of appointment of Lambardar, the choice of the learned Collector is not to be lightly interfered with, even if two views are possible (as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Kuldip Singh vs Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab, 2016(1) RCR (Civil) 273). ¶13

Ramjit Singh Vs Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the appointment of respondent No.4 (Tarsem Lal) as Lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of Village Saido Patti by the Collector, Hoshiarpur (order dated 04.02.2021), as maintained by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab (order dated 12.08.2024), suffers from illegality or perversity warranting interference.

¶14

Court's answer

¶13

Ratio / Principle

No illegality or perversity was found in the Collector's order dated 04.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) or the Financial Commissioner's order dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure P-4); consequently the writ petition fails.

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Lambardar appointment — Village Saido Patti: The learned Collector, Hoshiarpur, by order dated 04.02.2021 (Annexure P-1), appointed respondent No.4 (Tarsem Lal) as Lambardar (Scheduled Caste). The Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar set this aside by a totally non-speaking order dated 08.02.2023 (Annexure P-3); the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, by order dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure P-4), set aside the Commissioner's order and maintained the Collector's appointment, noting respondent No.4's merits (12th Standard, retired Co-operative Bank Manager, recommended by Lower Revenue Officers) and relying on Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram, 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 757 (no interference with the Collector's choice even if two views are possible). The writ petition was dismissed: this Court, relying on Kuldip Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab, 2016(1) RCR (Civil) 273, held that the Collector's choice in Lambardar appointment is not to be lightly interfered with even if two views are possible, and found no illegality or perversity in the orders dated 04.02.2021 and 12.08.2024. All pending applications stand closed.

¶1

APURVA 2025.05.08 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶2

, vide order dated 04.02.2021 (Annexure P-1).

¶3

dated 04.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) (Annexure P-3), allowed the same and remanded the matter to the learned Collector, Hoshiarpur, for passing a fresh order after hearing the parties.

¶4

2.4 Being (Annexure P-3), 12.08.2024 (Annexure P-4), whereby order dated 08.02.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar was set aside and order dated 04.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Collector, Hoshiarpur, appointing respondent No.4 (Tarsem Lal) as Lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of Village Saido Patti, was maintained.

¶5

(Scheduled Caste) of Village Saido Patti by the learned Collector, Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 04.02.2021 (Annexure P-1). The said order was

¶6

APURVA 2025.05.08 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶7

set aside by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar by passing a totally non-speaking order dated 08.02.2023 (Annexure P-3), however, the same was set aside by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, vide order dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure P-4), whereby the Collector’s order dated 04.02.2021 (Annexure P-1), appointing respondent No.4 (Tarsem Lal) as Lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of Village Saido Patti, was maintained, by observing as under:-

¶8

6. I have heard the Counsel for both the parties, gone through their submissions and perused the order of the courts below. In this case, the appellant was appointed as lambardar of the village by the District Collector, Hoshiarpur holding that the appellant is suitable candidate as he is 67 years of age and physically fit and his name is recommended by the lower revenue authorities as well. But the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar by passing a non-speaking order, accepted the appeal of the respondent. After evaluating the merits of both the candidates, I find that appellant is 12^th pass, retired as Manager from the Co-operative Bank, permanent resident of village and his name is recommended by the lower revenue authorities. After considering the comparative merits of the candidates, the District Collector, Hoshiapur vide order dated: 04.02.2021, appointed the appellant as lambardar of the village. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahavir Singh versus Khiali Ram & others reported as 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 757 held that “there should not be interference with the choice made by the collector in the appointment of lambardar even if two view are possible”. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar has illegally and wrongly set-aside the well-reasoned order passed by the District Collector, Hoshiarpur.

¶9

7. Resultantly, the present appeal is accepted and the order

¶10

APURVA 2025.05.08 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶11

dated: 08.02.2023, passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar is set-aside and the order dated: 04.02.2021, passed by the District Collector, Hoshiarpur vide which the appellant is appointed as Lambardar is upheld. Copy of this order be communicated to the courts below. File be consigned to the record room.”

¶12

5.1 A perusal of the aforesaid extracted order shows that the learned Financial Commissioner upheld the Collector’s order, whereby respondent No.4 (Tarsem Lal) was appointed as Lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of Village Saido Patti, by observing that respondent No.4 has studied up to 12^th Standard and he has retired as Manager from the Co-operative Bank and that his name was recommended for appointment to the post of Lambardar of Village Saido Patti, by the Lower Revenue Officers.

¶13

It is well settled that in the matter of appointment of Lambardar, the choice of learned Collector is not to be lightly interfered with, even if two views are possible; as held by a Division Bench of this Court in “Kuldip Singh vs Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab”, 2016(1) RCR (Civil) 273 .

¶14

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no illegality or perversity in orders dated 04.02.2021 (Annexure P-1) and 12.08.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Collector, Hoshiarpur and the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, respectively. Resultantly, the instant writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

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

¶16

APURVA 2025.05.08 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

Ramjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Nawab Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Pawan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Harbhajan Singh and Others Vs the Commissioner Rupnagar and Others

Sohan Singh & Ors. Vs the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Pb & Anr.

Dharamvir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Karandeep Bangar Minor through His Natural Guardian Mother Vs the Regional Passport Office Jalandhar