Man Singh vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2297 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Man Singh vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir ... on 9 October, 2025

Author: Sanjeev Kumar

Bench: Sanjeev Kumar

                                                                      2025:JKLHC-JMU:3277-DB




 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                  AT JAMMU

                                     LPA No.213/2025
                                     And
                                     LPA No.214/2025

                                      Reserved on: 27.09.2025
                                      Pronounced on: 09.10.2025
                                      Uploaded on: 09.10.2025

                          LPA No.213/2025
1.   Man Singh, Age 62 years
     S/o Hukam Chand
     R/o village Roulka Tehsil Bani District Kathua
2.   Bansi Lal, Age 62 years
     S/o Devi Ditta
     R/o Village Sandroon Tehsil Bani District Kathua
3.   Chatter Singh, Age 61 years
     S/o Sripat R/o Village Kilore Tehsil Bani District Kathua.
4.   Karam Chand, Age 63 years
     S/o Gunjara R/o Village Koti Tehsil Bani District Kathua.

                                                        ...Appellant(s)

                   Through:- Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate
Versus


1.    Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through
      Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government, Revenue
      Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
2.    Deputy Commissioner, Kathua
3.    Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Kathua
4.    Tehsildar Bani District Kathua
5.    Vipan Singh S/o Sham lal
      R/o Village Roulka Tehsil Bani District Kathua
6.    Rattan Chand S/o Bhagat Ram
      R/o Village Sandroon Tehsil Bani District Kathua
7.    Daleep Singh S/o Dev Raj
      R/o Village Kilore Tehsil Bani District Kathua
8.    Aflatoon S/o Rustam Butt
      R/o Village Koti Tehsil Bani District Kathua

                                                       ...Respondent(s)


LPA No.214/2025
 LPA Nos.213/2025 & 214/2025                       2




                                                                              2025:JKLHC-JMU:3277-DB




1.     Man Singh, Age 62 years
       S/o Hukam Chand
       R/o village Roulka Tehsil Bani District Kathua
2.     Bansi Lal, Age 62 years
       S/o Devi Ditta
       R/o Village Sandroon Tehsil Bani District Kathua
3.     Chatter Singh, Age 61 years
       S/o Sripat R/o Village Kilore Tehsil Bani District Kathua.
4.     Karam Chand, Age 63 years
       S/o Gunjara R/o Village Koti Tehsil Bani District Kathua.

                                                                ...Appellant(s)

                              Through:- Mr. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate
Versus


1.     Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through
       Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government, Revenue
       Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
2.     Deputy Commissioner, Kathua
3.     Tehsildar Bani District Kathua
4.     Vipan Singh S/o Sham lal
       R/o Village Roulka Tehsil Bani District Kathua
5.     Rattan Chand S/o Bhagat Ram
       R/o Village Sandroon Tehsil Bani District Kathua
6.     Daleep Singh S/o Dev Raj
       R/o Village Kilore Tehsil Bani District Kathua
7.     Aflatoon S/o Rustam Butt
       R/o Village Koti Tehsil Bani District Kathua

                                                               ...Respondent(s)

                              Through:-

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

                                          JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Kumar J

1. These two intra-Court appeals by the appellants are directed

against a common order and judgment dated 8th August, 2025

passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court ["Writ Court"]

in WP(C) Nos.596/2023 titled Man Singh and others v. UT of

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3277-DB

J&K and others and WP(C) No.3043/2023 titled Man Singh and

others v. UT of J&K and others, whereby the Writ Court has

dismissed both the petitions to the extent of seeking a direction

to the respondents to allow the appellants to continue as

Lambardars of their respective villages. However, a direction has

been issued to the respondents to hold election to the post of

Lambardars of the respective villages of the appellants within a

period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the

judgment. The Writ Court has also directed that till election to

the office of Lambardars is held, private respondents shall

continue to hold the posts, however, no further extension to them

beyond the period of three months shall be given.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr.

Jagpaul Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, a brief

recapitulation of the factual narration leading to the filing of

these appeals would be necessary.

3. The appellant No.1 was appointed as Lambardar of Village

Roulka Tehsil Bani of District Kathua vide order dated

24.01.1994 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua.

Appellant No.2 was appointed Lambardar for Village Sandroon

Tehsil Bani of District Kathua in the year 1995. Similarly,

appellant Nos. 3 and 4 were also appointed as Lambardars for

villages Kilore and Koti of Tehsil Bani in the year 1990 and

01.10.2004 respectively. Tehsildar Bani of District Kathua vide

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3277-DB

communication dated 3rd March, 2023 addressed to the Deputy

Commissioner, Kathua appointed the private respondents as

temporary Lambardars for the respective revenue villages in

place of the appellants. Feeling aggrieved by their

unceremonious exit and temporary appointment of respondent

Nos. 4 to 7 (in LPA No.214/2025) as Lambardars, the appellants

approached the Writ Court by way of WP(C) No.596/2023. Vide

an interim order dated 10th March, 2023 passed in the aforesaid

writ petition, it was provided that the appointment of private

respondents for the posts of Lamberdar for Villages Roulka,

Sandroon, Kilore and Koti of Tehsil Bani shall not be undertaken

except by election.

4. The writ petition was opposed by the official respondents in

which it was for the first time disclosed that the appellants stood

dismissed before making temporary appointment of the private

respondents as Lambardars of their respective villages. The

dismissal was challenged by the appellants by preferring another

writ petition being WP(C) No. 3043/2023 titled Man Singh and

others v. UT of J&K and others. Both these writ petitions were

taken up together by the Writ Court and were dismissed by a

common judgment dated 8th August, 2025, which is impugned

before us in these Letters Patent Appeals.

5. The impugned judgment is challenged by the appellants

primarily on the ground that the Writ Court has failed to

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3277-DB

appreciate that the temporary appointment of respondent Nos. 4

to 7 as Lambardars of respective villages was made in

contravention of the Jammu & Kashmir Lambardari Act, 1972

["the Lambardari Act"] and the Rules framed thereunder. It was

argued by Mr. Jagpaul Singh, learned counsel for the appellants,

that the replacement of the appellants by private respondents was

in contravention of Rule 14 of the J&K Lambardari Rules, 1980

["the Lambardari Rules"] as amended upto date. It was

submitted that the appellants could not have been replaced by the

private respondents without holding election in terms of Rule 14

(supra). It was further argued that in a case where Lambardar is

dismissed under Rule 9 of the Lambardari Rules, Tehsildar

concerned has no power to make temporary appointment.

6. The judgment of the Writ Court was also attacked by the learned

counsel for the appellants on the ground that the Writ Court fell

in error in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground that the

appellants had crossed the age of superannuation of Lambardar

i.e. 60 years and, therefore, had no case to maintain the petition.

He would submit that the Writ Court failed to appreciate that the

appellants had been dismissed not on the ground that they had

crossed the age of 60 years but on the ground that they were

physically incapacitated to discharge duties of Lambardar in

their respective villages.

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3277-DB

7. Having considered the rival contentions in light of the Rule

position, the Writ Court came to the conclusion that under the

Lambardari Act and the Rules framed thereunder, a Lambardar

has no vested right to continue indefinitely that, too, without

election. It was held that in terms of Rule 16 of the Lambardari

Rules, the term of office of the elected Lambadar is 5 years or till

he attains the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier. The

appellants, who had crossed the age of 60 years, were therefore,

otherwise ineligible to continue beyond such age. Relying upon

its earlier judgment rendered in Bashir Ahmed Teli v. State of

J&K and others, OWP No.1809/2017/2017 along with clubbed

matters, decided on 24th July, 2025, the Writ Court held the writ

petitions not maintainable.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the

material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the

appellants have no locus standi to challenge the appointment of

private respondents on any ground whatsoever.

9. Rule 16, as amended, reads thus:-

"16. Term of Office of Lambardar:

(1) The term of office for which Lambardar may be elected shall be 5 years or till he attains the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier.

(2) An outgoing Lambardar shall, unless the Government otherwise direct, continue in office till the election of his successor.

(3) An outgoing member may, if otherwise qualified, be eligible for contesting the election.

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3277-DB

(4) When as a result of any enquiry held under these rules, an order declaring the election of any Lambardar void has been announced, such Lambardar shall forthwith cease to hold his office."

10. From Rule 16 it is evident beyond any shadow of doubt that the

term of office for which a Lambardar may be elected is five (5)

years or till he attains the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier. It

is true that the appellants were not the persons elected to the

office of Lambardar, but had been appointed to the office

otherwise than by holding election. In terms of Rule 14(4),

where vacancy is not filled by election, the appointment to a

vacant post of Lambardar can be made by the Revenue Officer

not below the rank of Tehsildar for a period not exceeding six

months and such appointment shall be subject to confirmation by

the Collector. However, in terms of Rules 11 of the Lambardari

Rules, Tehsildar is empowered to appoint a substitute in place of

Lambardar placed under suspension under Rule 8 or 10, as the

case may be. A substitute Lambardar may also be appointed

where the incumbent Lambardar remains absent with the

permission of the Tehsildar on account of his sickness or any

other reason for the period exceeding six months or he is unable

to perform the duties imposed upon him under the Rules. Such

substitute Lambardar may also be appointed for a period not

exceeding six months. It is, however, in exceptional cases period

of six months can be extended with the prior approval of the

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3277-DB

District Collector. For ready reference Rule 11 and Rule 14 are

also set out herein below:

"11. Temporary appointment of a substitute and his duties.

(1) Tehsildar may appoint as substitute in place of the Lambardar

placed under suspension under rule 8 or 10, as the case may be.

(2) In case a Lambardar remains, with the permission of the Tehsildar, absent by reason of sickness or any other reason for the period exceeding six months or is unable to perform the duties imposed upon him under these rules, a substitute may be appointed in his place [for a period not exceeding six months. However, in exceptional cases, the period of six months can be extended with the prior approval of District Collector].

(3) A substitute (Lambardar) appointed under the above sub rules shall be entitled to the remuneration payable or the amounts to be recovered by him during the period of suspension of a Lambardar and perform all duties mentioned in Rule 6.

...................

....................

14. Elections.

(1) A general election of Lambardar be held in accordance with these rules, within such time and within such areas as may be prescribed by the Revenue Minister by a Notification in the Government Gazette.

(2). Deleted.

(3). Where a vacancy is ordered to be filled by election, such election shall take place in accordance with these rules and the Revenue Minister may, in respect of the vacancy so filled by selection order, that no fresh election shall take place till the next election or till the constituency again falls vacant.

(4) Subject to the provisions of Clause (a) where the vacancy is not filled by election, the appointment to a vacant post of Lambardar

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3277-DB

shall be made by the Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tehsildar subject to confirmation by the Collector for a period not exceeding six months:

Provided that the appointee, shall possess all the qualifications prescribed in this behalf and shall not suffer from any disabilities that apply to the election of the Lambardar."

11. The Rule position, as it exists, clearly provides that the office of

Lambardar can be filled up only by way of general election to be

conducted within such time within such areas as may be

prescribed by the Revenue Minister by a notification in the

Government Gazette. It is only in following two contingencies,

temporary appointment to the office of Lambardar can be made

by the competent authority:

i) Where the vacancy is not filled up by election for

whatever reason, the Revenue Office not below the rank

of Tehsildar can make temporary appointment of

Lambardar for a period not exceeding six months. This

temporary appointment would be subject to confirmation

by the Collector.

ii) Where incumbent Lambardar is placed under suspension

under Rule 8 and 10 of the Lambardari Rules, as the case

may be or remains absent with the permission of the

Tehsildar on account of sickness or any other reason for a

period exceeding six months or is unable to perform the

duties imposed upon him under the Rules, a substitute

Lambardar may be appointed in his place for a period not

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3277-DB

exceeding six months. However, in exceptional cases,

period of six months can be extended by Tehsildar

concerned with prior approval of the District Collector.

12. In the instant case, the appellants were dismissed from their

office as Lambardars as they were found unfit to discharge their

duties as per the requirement of their job owing to physical

incapacity. True it is that the order of dismissal of the appellants

as Lambardars of their respective villages was without affording

an opportunity of being heard to them, however, having regard to

the fact that the appellants have crossed the age of 60 years, they

are not eligible to hold the post of Lambardar whether by

election or otherwise.

13. The term of office to which a Lambardar may be elected is

maximum five years or till he attains the age of sixty years,

whichever is earlier. If a regularly appointed Lambardar by

election cannot hold office beyond the age of sixty years, by way

of necessary corollary, it has to be held that a temporary

Lambardar or substitute Lambardar appointed under the

Lambardari Rules for a limited duration also cannot continue

beyond sixty years. Although, the order of dismissal of the

appellants appears to be stigmatic on the face of it, yet on a

careful perusal we find that the appellants were dismissed from

the office for the reasons that they were rendered unfit to

discharge the duties owing to physical incapacity.

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3277-DB

14. Obviously, physical incapacity to perform the duties of

Lambardar was because of their advanced age. The Writ Court

has taken all these aspects into consideration and has held the

challenge to deletion of Sub Rule (5) of Rule 16 of the

Lambardari Rules untenable in law. At this stage, we would like

to set out un-amended Rule 16 of the Lambardari Rules herein

below:

"16. Term of office of Lambardar.---(1) The term of office for

which Lambardar shall be elected shall not ordinarily exceed five years.

(2) An outgoing Lambardar shall, unless the Government otherwise direct, continue in office until the election of his successor is announced.

(3) An outgoing member may, if otherwise qualified, be re-elected.

(4) When as a result of any enquiry held under these rules an order declaring the election of any Lambardar void has been announced, such Lambardar shall forthwith cease to hold his office.

(5) When a Lambardar is appointed otherwise than by election he shall continue till he dies or is dismissed/discharged or till the general election of Lambardars is held."

15. Sub Rule (5) of Rule 16, which now stands deleted after

amendment, provided that when a Lambardar is appointed

otherwise than by election, he would continue till he died or was

dismissed or discharged or till the general election of the

Lambardars was held. The aforesaid rule was enacted keeping in

view that there would be timely election to fill up the office of

Lambardars in the villages. It is, however, everybody's

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3277-DB

knowledge that such elections have not been held for the last so

many decades and the temporary Lambardars appointed as a

stopgap arrangement have been continuing, though, as per the

mandate of the Rules, they could have been appointed only for a

maximum period of six months. It is in view of these

circumstances and probably regard being had to the fact that

general election to the office of Lambardars has not be held for

long, Clause (5) of Rule 16 of the Lambardari Rules was deleted.

16. The amended Rules, as now exist, provide that the term of office

for which Lambardar may be elected shall be only five years or

till he attains the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier, making

the intention manifestly clear that there would be general

election to the office after every five years and that a person

beyond the age of sixty years will not be permitted to function as

Lambardar.

17. Rule 17 of the Lambardari Rules, to which reference was made

by Mr. Jagpaul Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, refers

to filling up casual vacancies that may occur due to death,

resignation, removal or by vacation of seat of Lambardar under

the provisions of Sub-Clause(4) of Rule 16, by election in

accordance with the rules. The Divisional Commissioner is,

however, empowered to fill up such vacancy by nomination of a

person, if it has occurred not more than six months before the

next general elections are due. The rule further emphasizes that

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3277-DB

such casual vacancy would be filled up only by a person, who is,

otherwise, qualified for appointment as Lambardar under the

rules.

18. In the case on hand, the appellants were only temporary

Lambardars appointed under Rule 11 and would have continued

only for a period of six months or for such extended period as

may be ordered by the Tehsildar concerned with the prior

approval of the District Collector. Continuation beyond the

period of six months was to be ordered only in exceptional cases.

The appellants remained in office for a pretty long time riding on

the Rule 16(5) (un-amended) and also taking the benefit of

inability of the official respondents to hold general elections to

the office of Lambardars. They crossed the age of sixty years and

because of their old age, were found unable to perform the duties

of the office of Lambardar. It is in these circumstances, Tehsildar

concerned dismissed them from service and made the temporary

appointments. The Writ Court has taken note of the inordinate

delay on the part of the official respondents to conduct general

elections and as, thus, issued requisite directions for conducting

the election in a time bound manner.

19. For all these reasons coupled with the elaborate reasons given by

the Writ Court in the judgment impugned as also in the judgment

rendered in the case of Bashir Ahmed Teli (supra), we find no

good ground to interfere with the judgment impugned. Both the

2025:JKLHC-JMU:3277-DB

appeals are found devoid of any merit and are, accordingly,

dismissed.

                              (Sanjay Parihar)                   (Sanjeev Kumar)
                                  Judge                              Judge
JAMMU
09.10.2025
Vinod,PS                           Whether the order is speaking : Yes
                                   Whether the order is reportable: Yes