Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Radesh Kumar vs The Union Territory Of Jammu And on 8 August, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2230
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 31.05.2025
Pronounced on: 08.08.2025
WP(C) No. 384/2023
1. Radesh Kumar
Aged 50 Years, S/O Late Sh.
Daya Ram, R/O Village Chhurta,
Tehsil Dansal, District Jammu. .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. S. M. Chowdhary, Advocate.
Vs
1. The Union Territory of Jammu and
Kashmir
Th. Commissioner/Secretary, Revenue
Department, Civil Secretariat,
Jammu/Srinagar.
2. The District Collector (Deputy
Commissioner), Jammu.
3. The Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate
1st Class, Tehsil Dansal, District
Jammu.
4. The Naib Tehsildar, Naibat Jhajjar
Kotli, Tehsil Dansal, District
Jammu.
5. Babu Taver Kumar
(Temporary Lamberdar) S/O Bansi
Lal, presently R/O Village Chhurta,
Tehsil Dansal, District Jammu
6. Sohan Lal,
S/O Daya Ram R/O Village Sandrote,
Panchayat Janakha, Tehsil Dansal,
District Jammu ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner was appointed as Lamberdar of Village Chhurta, Tehsil
Dansal, District Jammu by the District Collector, Jammu vide order
dated 11.07.2019. It is stated that the deceased father of the petitioner
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2230
was one of the co-owners/co-sharers in possession of Shamlat Deh
Maqbooza Malkan land falling in Survey No. 1391 of village Chhurta
and during his lifetime, he had constructed two shops about 25 years
ago over a piece of land measuring 4 Marlas mentioned above as one
of the co-sharers. On 03.01.2022, the respondent No. 6 filed an
application with respondent No. 3, complaining therein that the elder
brother of the respondent No. 6, namely, Mohan Lal had forcibly
retained his two shops situated near Convent School Chhurta and
sought action against him. Pursuant to the directions of respondent No.
3, an enquiry came to be conducted by Naib Tehsildar, Jhajjar Kotli-
respondent No. 4 along with Patwari concerned. The respondent No. 4
reported to respondent No. 3 that two shops have been found to be
constructed on Survey No. 1391 of the abovementioned village and
one shop is under possession of Sohan Lal and the other is in
possession of Radesh Kumar i.e. the petitioner herein. The respondent
No. 4 further stated that reference of mutation No. 541 has been found
in respect of land measuring 5 Marlas of village Chhurta falling under
Survey No. 1391 min, but the mutation is not forthcoming from the
record. The respondent No. 3, by placing reliance upon the enquiry
report of respondent No. 4 placed the petitioner under suspension till
further orders and directed the respondent No. 4 and SHO, Police
Station, Jhajjar Kotli to dispossess the petitioner from the said shop
constructed on Survey No. 1391 and Kamal Singh Lambardar of Kalu
Band was given the additional charge of village Chhurta vide order
dated 29.06.2022.
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2230
2. Aggrieved of the order dated 29.06.2022 passed by the respondent No.
3, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector/Additional
Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, who vide order dated 08.07.2022 set-
aside the order dated 29.06.2022 and remanded the matter back to the
respondent No. 3 for passing fresh orders. The petitioner claims to
have conveyed the order dated 08.07.2022 to respondent No. 3
through virtual mode and the hard copy of the same was furnished to
him subsequently requesting the respondent No. 3 to initiate fresh
enquiry in terms of order dated 08.07.2022, but instead of conducting
enquiry as directed in terms of order dated 08.07.2022, the respondent
No. 3, in terms of order dated 08.07.2022, recommended dismissal of
the petitioner from the position of Lambardar of village Chhurta to the
respondent No. 2. After receiving order of remand, the respondent No.
3 issued notice to father of the petitioner, namely, Daya Ram, aged 95
years, to appear before him on 27.09.2022. Father of the petitioner
appeared before respondent No. 3 and his statement was recorded,
wherein he had stated that he had constructed two shops in Survey No.
1391 and one shop is in possession of Radesh Kumar and another is in
possession of Sohan Lal for the last about 20 to 25 years and about 2
Marlas of land is lying vacant which has been assigned to Mohan Lal
and Jagdish Kumar. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3, on 17.10.2022
upheld his own order dated 29.06.2022. The respondent No. 3 issued
order dated 21.02.2023, whereby the respondent No. 5 was
temporarily appointed as Lambardar of village Chhurta in violation of
order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu dated
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2230
08.07.2022, whereby the matter was remanded to the respondent No. 3
for conducting fresh enquiry. On 31.01.2023, the petitioner preferred
second appeal before the court of Additional Deputy Commissioner,
Jammu against the impugned recommendation dated 08.07.2022 made
by the respondent No. 3 and order dated 21.02.2023, whereby the
respondent No. 5 was appointed as temporary Lambardar of village
Chhurta by the respondent No. 3. Both these appeals are still pending
adjudication before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. It is
stated that on 24.07.2022, a meeting of prominent persons of village
Chhurta was held in which about 91 people participated, and they
unanimously requested the Deputy Commissioner (District Collector)
Jammu to reinstate the petitioner on his position, as the petitioner is
hard worker and has been suspended by the Tehsildar Dansal on false
complaint submitted by his opponents.
3. The petitioner has assailed the orders dated 08.07.2022, 17.10.2022
and 21.01.2023 on the following grounds:
i. That the order dated 29.06.2022 passed by the respondent No. 3
was set-aside by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu
and the respondent No. 3 was directed to provide opportunity of
hearing to the deceased father of the petitioner and the petitioner
i.e. the appellants therein but they were not heard by the
respondent No. 3 while passing the order impugned.
ii. That the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the Additional
Deputy Commissioner, Jammu was conveyed to the respondent
No. 3 on the same date and on the same day, without conducting
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2230
any enquiry, in terms of order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the
Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, the respondent No. 3
recommended for dismissal of the petitioner.
iii. That the statement of father of the petitioner was recorded by
respondent No. 3, which is self-explanatory, but it appears that
the respondent No. 3 has not gone through the statement
recorded by him in its right perspective.
iv. That a perusal of the order impugned dated 21.01.2023 reveals
that the respondent No. 3 has not gone through the circular upon
which he has placed reliance while making temporary
appointment of respondent No. 5 as the temporary vacancies are
required to be filled up only after proper verification of
antecedents and credentials, because the respondent No. 5
cannot read and write Urdu, as such, was not eligible to be
appointed as Lambardar.
4. The respondent No. 3 has filed response, stating therein that he got the
in-depth enquiry conducted by the field staff and statements of
inhabitants of village Chhurta were recorded and as per statements it
was found that the petitioner had lost credibility and support of the
inhabitants of village Chhurta as Lambardar of the village, as a result
of which, he was placed under suspension as per relevant provisions
and rules of J&K Lambardari Act. It is further stated that as per
statements of the villages, the legal heirs of Malu were having the
possession on the said land since time immemorial and Pukhu S/O
Malu wilfully handed over the possession of 5 Marlas of land to Sohan
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2230
Lal S/O Daya Ram in the year 1997-98 for construction of shops. Ram
Lal S/O Kashmiri was the concerned man with whose help, the shops
were constructed in the year 1997-98 and even Ram Lal himself
revealed that the said shops were constructed by him as per request of
Sh. Sohan Lal S/O Daya Ram. Inhabitants of the village further
revealed that Sohan Lal S/O Daya Ram was peacefully running the
two shops after the construction till 03.01.2022 and on the said date
during evening, one shop was encroached upon and taken possession
of illegally and forcibly by persons, namely, Mohan Lal, Radesh
Kumar, Jagdish Kumar all sons of Daya Ram. Rakesh Kumar S/O
Maan Chand, a specially-abled person also submitted that he was
sitting in the shop on 03.01.2022 and the above-mentioned persons
barged into the shop and took control of one of the shops illegally and
forcibly. It is further stated that recommendation was made by
respondent No. 3 to the higher authorities for dismissal of the
petitioner as per J&K Lambardari Rules, 1980 and further that in
compliance to order dated 08.07.2022, fresh summons were issued to
father of the petitioner on 24.082022 and after recording the statement
of father of the petitioner, it became crystal clear that the petitioner's
father was not having any stake in the matter and his claim was not
satisfactory. Thereafter, order dated 17.10.2022 was passed. It is
further stated that new Lambardar has been appointed on temporary
basis for village Chhurta.
5. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have also filed response, stating therein
that inhabitants of village Chhurta made the representation that the
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2230
petitioner was not appointed as Lambardar with the consent of
inhabitants of village Chhurta. It is further stated that the petitioner
was not entitled to stake any claim for the post of Lambardar on
account of his ineligibility because he was not having any
property/land in his name in the said village Chhurta. Private
respondents have in fact defended the orders passed by the respondent
No. 3.
6. Heard and perused the record.
7. A perusal of order dated 11.07.2019 reveals that the petitioner was
appointed as temporary Lambardar of village Chhurta, Tehsil Dansal,
District Jammu and his appointment was confirmed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Jammu. This is also admitted fact that the petitioner
was placed under suspension vide order dated 29.06.2022 and the said
order was set-aside by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu
vide order dated 08.07.2022 and further, the respondent No. 3 in terms
of order dated 08.07.2022 recommended dismissal of the petitioner,
regarding which, the petitioner preferred an appeal, as is averred in
Para (13) of the writ petition. The petitioner has also filed an appeal
against the order dated 21.02.2023, whereby the respondent No. 5 has
been appointed as temporary Lambardar.
8. In fact, the official respondents are themselves responsible for non-
enforcement of the Lambardari Act and Rules framed thereunder. This
Court has come across almost 100 cases, wherein Lambardars were
appointed on temporary basis, but they continued for years together
and as such, they nurtured an impression that they have got vested
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2230
right to continue as Lambardars, notwithstanding the fact that they
were never elected as Lambardar under the Lambardari Rules, 1980.
In terms of Lambardari Rules, a Lambardar can continue in Office for
a period of five years or till he attains the age of 60 years. Strangely,
the petitioner himself was appointed as temporary Lambardar vide
order dated 11.07.2019, but just because the official respondents have
not conducted the elections for the post of Lambardar, not only in the
village of the petitioner but also other villages, persons like the
petitioner have continued to work as Lambardar for years and rather
decades together, despite the fact that they were appointed only
temporarily.
9. In Bashir Ahmed Teli versus State of J&K & Ors. bearing OWP
1809/2017, this Court has held that the Lambardar appointed on
temporary basis does not have vested right to continue as Lambardar
till elections are held. Vide order dated 22.02.2023, all the orders
impugned in this petition were kept in abeyance but subject to
objections from the other side. This is also admitted fact that two
appeals are pending before the respondent No. 2, as such, any
adjudication on merits may have bearing upon the appeals sub-judice
before the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu.
10. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of, along with the
connected application, if any, by directing the respondent No. 2 to
decide the appeals preferred by the petitioner within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and
further the official respondents are directed to conduct elections for the
2025:JKLHC-JMU:2230
post of Lambardar within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order. The respondent No. 1 is further
directed to ensure compliance of J&K Lambardari Act and rules
framed thereunder, within the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
in its letter and spirit.
11. Disposed of.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu
08.08.2025
Sahil Padha
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.
