Paramjit Singh Vs the Financial Commissioner Punajb and Others

Petitioner (Paramjit Singh) 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 08.10.2018 (Annexure P-7), passed by learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab (in short 'Financial Commissioner') and also the order dated 14.03.2016 (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned District Collector, Ferozepur (in short 'Collector').

¶16

1.1 A further prayer has been made for maintaining order dated 24.08.2017 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur (in short 'Divisional Commissioner').

¶17

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2026.05.29 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP-11760-2019 (O/M)

¶19

-22026:PHHC:084964

¶20

Briefly, on demise of Shri Gurcharan Singh, previous Lambardar of village Ali Wala, Tehsil and District Ferozepur, proceedings were initiated for filling up the vacancy.

¶21

2.1 It appears that in pursuance to proclamation made in village, 4 applications (including respondent No. 4-Sukhmander Singh), were received.

¶22

2.2 It transpires that out of aforesaid 4 candidates, 3 candidates withdrew their applications and only respondent No. 4 (Sukhmander Singh) remained in the fray.

¶23

2.3 It appears that while proceedings were pending before the revenue authorities, petitioner (Paramjit Singh) also submitted an application beyond the last date i.e. 04.07.2015 for submitting application for the post of Lambardar.

¶24

2.4 Before learned Collector, petitioner raised a plea that no mustri munadi was carried out in village, therefore, he could not submitted his application within time. The aforesaid contention raised on behalf of petitioner was considered by learned Collector; however, it appears that village panchayat including Sarpanch, 4 members panchayat and 3 ex-sarpanches alongwith other residents of village gave their statement that the mustri munadi was duly conducted in the village.

¶25

2.5 Learned Collector, upon consideration of the matter, came to the conclusion that the mustri munadi was duly conducted in village and therefore, application of petitioner (Paramjit Singh) was rejected. Further, since respondent No. 4 (Sukhmander Singh) was the only candidate available and finding him as a suitable candidate, therefore, he was appointed as Lambardar of village Ali Wala, vide order

¶26

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA2026.05.29 16:27 dated 14.03.2016 (Annexure P-3). I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CWP-11760-2019 (O/M)

¶28

-32026:PHHC:084964

¶29

2.6 Feeling aggrieved against learned Collector's aforesaid order, petitioner preferred an appeal before learned Divisional Commissioner, which came to be allowed, vide order 24.08.2017 (Annexure P-4) and matter was remanded to learned Collector for passing fresh order after making fresh proclamation in the village.

¶30

2.7 Feeling aggrieved against learned Divisional Commissioner's aforesaid order, respondent No. 4-Sukhmander Singh preferred an appeal before learned Financial Commissioner; which has been allowed, vide order dated 08.10.2018 (Annexure P-7); whereby the order passed by learned Divisional Commissioner was set aside and learned Collector's order dated 14.03.2016 (Annexure P-3), appointing respondent No. 4 as Lambardar, has been maintained.

¶31

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

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the paperbook with their able assistance.

¶33

At the outset, it is noticeable that this writ petition was filed in the year 2019 and while issuing notice of motion on 06.05.2019, no stay was granted in favour of petitioner.

¶34

Be that as it may, before this Court as well, learned counsel for petitioner has raised only one submission that no proclamation was carried out in the village for inviting applications to the vacancy of Lambardar of village Ali Wala.

¶35

6.1 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has opposed aforesaid contention.

¶36

During the course of hearing of this writ petition, learned

¶37

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA2026.05.29 16:27 counsel for petitioner was asked to point out from any material/document, I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

CWP-11760-2019 (O/M)

¶39

-42026:PHHC:084964

¶40

which may indicate that no proclamation/mustri munadi was carried out in the village; however, learned counsel for petitioner has failed to do so. 7.1 On the other hand, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for respondent No. 4 that proclamation was duly carried out in the village on 25.06.2015 and factum of carrying out proclamation was duly reflected in the rojnamcha, vide rapat No. 531, dated 25.06.2015. It is further pointed out that even the gram panchayat including the sarpanch and member panchayat alongwith ex-sarapanches and other residents of village had given statement that mustri munadi was duly conducted in the village.

¶41

7.2 Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has further referred to Annexure R-4/2; wherein a specific report has been made by Naib Tehsildar, Ferozepur as regards conduct of mustri munadi in the village, the relevant extract of which reads as under :-

¶42

“No. 296/RII dated 30/7/15

¶43

In original, it is requested to Tehsildar, Ferozepur that after the death of earlier Lambardar of village Aliwala namely Gurcharan Singh on 21/4/15, for filling the vacant post of Lambardar, the last date of receiving applications after Mushtri Munadi was 4/7/15 and as per Rapat No. 531 dated 25/6/15 of Patwari, Mushtri Munadi has already done, resultantly total four application of Lambardari candidates has been received, which are received from 1) Sh. Mohinder Singh son of Surjeet Singh, 2) Sukhjinder Singh son of Gurcharan Singh 3) Resham Singh son of Darshan Singh 4) Sukhmander Singh son of Gurcharan Singh. In this case the undersigned has already send recommendation of candidate Sukhmander Singh to you. The report is presented for further action.

¶44

Sd/- 30/07/15 Naib Tehsildar, Ferozepur”

¶45

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2026.05.29 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶46

CWP-11760-2019 (O/M)

¶47

-52026:PHHC:084964

¶48

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is hardly any doubt as regards conduct of proclamation in the village for calling application to the vacant post of Lambardar of village Ali Wala. Evidently, the petitioner did not apply before the last date of receiving application i.e. 04.07.2015, therefore, he has no locus standi in the matter.

¶49

8.1 Even otherwise, it appears that learned Financial Commissioner has considered the relevant merits and de-merits of petitioner (Paramjit Singh) as well as respondent No. 4 (Sukhmander Singh) also and he found respondent No. 4 to be more meritorious than the petitioner and accordingly, set aside the order dated 24.08.2017 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Divisional Commissioner and maintained learned Collector's order dated 14.03.2016 (Annexure P-3), appointing respondent No. 4 (Sukhmander Singh) as Lambardar of village Ali Wala, by observing as under :-

¶50

“6. I have heard the arguments of both the counsel for the parties and perused the orders of courts below. I have also gone through the written arguments submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and respondent. On perusal of the file. I find that the main contention of the respondent is that no proclamation was made in the village with the result he could not apply for the post. The District Collector in his order dated 14.03.2016 has clearly mentioned that four persons applied for the post and Paramjit Singh did not apply within a time and stated that no munadi was done in the village. The gram panchayat including sarpanch and four panches of village and other residents of the village have given their statement that proclamation was done in the village on 25.5.2015. On other hand, chowkidar and other persons have stated that no proclamation was done. In these circumstances, the District Collector has formed his opinion that proclamation was done in the village. After perusing the

¶51

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2026.05.29 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

CWP-11760-2019 (O/M)

¶53

-62026:PHHC:084964

¶54

order of the District Collector it is clear that proclamation was done in the village.

¶55

So far as the merits and demerits of both the candidates are concerned, there is no much different between the two. The respondent is 40 years old whereas appellant is 45 years old. The respondent studied upto 10+2 but the appellant is 8^th pass. Both are residents of the same village. The Tehsildar and SDM, Ferozepur recommended the name of Sukhmandar Singh. The District Collector, Ferozepur after considering the merits and demerits of the contesting candidates, appointed the appellant Sukhmander Singh as Lambardar vide order dated 14.3.2016. Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case titled as Satpal versus State of Haryna and others, 2011 (3) L.A.R. 636 (P&H) has held that Collector is the appointing authority of the Lambardar. It is the duty of the Collector to appoint such persons in the office of Lambardar, who are eligible and competent to carry out the duties efficiently. He is in an advantageous position to examine the merits and demerits of the candidates. Choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of village Lambardar should not normally be interfered with, unless the Collector has taken a perverse view and has not exercised his choice judiciously. In the present case, I find nothing perverse in the order of the District Collector. The order of the District Colelctor is well reasoned and according to law. But the Commissioner has set aside the well reasoned order passed by the District Collector which is perverse and illegal.

¶56

Keeping in view the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, appeal is allowed and order dated 24.08.2017 passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur is set aside and order of the District Collector dated 14.03.2016 is upheld. Copy of this order be conveyed to the lower revenue authorities. File be consigned to the record room.”

¶57

SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2026.05.29 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

CWP-11760-2019 (O/M)

¶59

-72026:PHHC:084964

¶60