Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dal Chand vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 1 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115492
CWP No.11574 of 2016 -1- 2023:PHHC:115492
206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.11574 of 2016
Date of decision : 01.09.2023
Dal Chand
..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present: Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
Present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in
the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 27.04.2016
(Annexure P-4) passed by learned Financial Commissioner whereby the
well reasoned order dated 04.09.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned
District Collector, Rewari and order dated 24.04.2014 (Annexure P-3)
passed by learned Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon have been
set aside and respondent No.4 has been appointed as Lambardar of the
village after removal of the petitioner from the post of Lambardar. Further
prayer has been made for staying the operation of impugned order dated
27.04.2016 (Annexure P-4) of learned Financial Commissioner.
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115492
CWP No.11574 of 2016 -2- 2023:PHHC:115492
Brief facts of the case are that on the death of Lambardar,
namely, Mam Chand (Backward category) on 10.02.2010, the post of
Lambardar in village Rajiyaki, Tehsil and District Rewari fell vacant. For
filling up the post, process for appointment of new Lambardar was initiated
and applications from the eligible candidates were invited. Resultantly, six
applications were received from the candidates, namely, Sunder Lal son of
Mam Chand, Dharam Pal son of Sukhdev, Dal Chand son of Mool Chand
(petitioner), Rajender son of Yad Ram (respondent No.4), Dharam Pal son
of Hoshiar and Ram Niwas son of Maman Singh. In pursuance to the same,
their character verification was got done and their interse merits were
appreciated. On appreciation of the same, the petitioner was found to be 64
years of age and he was 10+2 pass. So far as respondent No.4 is concerned,
he was found to be 52 years of age and he was matric pass. The Collector
on complete analysis on the merits, finally appointed the petitioner,
namely, Dal Chand as Lambardar (Backward category) of the village
RajiyaKi vide his order dated 04.09.2012. Sanad Lambardari was issued to
the petitioner by the District Collector on 28.12.2012. Aggrieved by the
order passed by the District Collector, respondent No.4 filed an appeal
under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 (for short 'the
Act') before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, after hearing both the
sides, finding no perversity in the order passed by the Collector, dismissed
the appeal filed by the respondent No.4 vide his order dated 24.04.2014.
Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 filed the revision petition under
Section 16 of the Act before the learned Financial Commissioner. The
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115492
CWP No.11574 of 2016 -3- 2023:PHHC:115492
learned Financial Commissioner, after hearing both the sides, appointed
respondent No.4 as Lambardar vide impugned order dated 27.04.2016.
Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present
petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended
that on comparing the interse merits of both the petitioner as well as
respondent No.4, the District Collector found the petitioner to be more
suitable and thus, he was rightly appointed as the Lambardar of village
Rajiya ki. He submits that the appeal filed by respondent No.4 was also
dismissed by the learned Commissioner vide his order dated 24.04.2014.
However, learned Financial Commissioner by passing the totally cryptic
order, set aside the well reasoned order passed by both the Courts below
i.e. by the Collector and by the Commissioner. He submits that the order
passed by the learned Financial Commissioner has assigned no reason
which would show any perversity in the order passed by the Collector,
which was duly upheld by the Commissioner. He further submits that the
only ground taken by the learned Financial Commissioner was that
respondent No.4 was younger in age and he belongs to the family of
Lambardar and has the knowledge. He submits that learned Financial
Commissioner has miserably failed in appreciating that as per the law
settled, the choice of the Collector cannot be interfered with in a casual
manner, unless and until the same is suffering from patent illegality.
However, in the present case, the Collector found the petitioner to be more
meritorious and thus, he was rightly appointed as Lambardar. He submits
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115492
CWP No.11574 of 2016 -4- 2023:PHHC:115492
that respondent No.4 is not even residing in the village, thus, the petitioner
was rightly been appointed as Lambardar of the village Rajiya ki. He relies
upon the decision passed by this Court in "Daya Ram vs. Bhagwan and
others", 2015(4) RCR (Civil) 929, which is totally applicable in the facts
and circumstances of the present case. He has submitted that learned
Financial Commissioner could not even interfere with the well reasoned
order passed by both the Courts below and thus, the view taken by learned
Financial Commissioner is totally unsustainable in the eyes of law. He
further submits that the impugned order being against the comprehension
of law, deserves to be set aside by upholding the order passed by the
Collector which is duly affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has opposed
the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that
the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Rajiya ki has also issued a report dated
05.11.2016 wherein it was stated that the respondent is very much living in
the village. He further submits that respondent No.4 is 14 years younger
than the petitioner. He submits that the learned Collector as well as learned
Commissioner had totally overlooked the evidence on record and thus, has
wrongly appointed the petitioner to be the Lambardar of village.
I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused
the material on record.
After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing
the material on record, it is apparent that on the death of Lambardar,
namely, Mam Chand (Backward category) on 10.02.2010 in village Rajiya
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115492
CWP No.11574 of 2016 -5- 2023:PHHC:115492
ki, the post of Lambardar fell vacant. In pursuance to the same, process for
appointment of new Lambardar was initiated and applications from the
eligible candidates were invited. As a result, six applications were received.
Their character verification was conducted and interse merits were
appreciated. On appreciation of the same, the petitioner was found to be 64
years of age and he was 10+2 pass. Besides this, respondent No.4 was
found to be 52 years of age and was matric pass. After analyzing the merits
of the candidates, the Collector finally appointed the petitioner-Dal Chand
as the Lambardar (Backward category) of village Rajiya Ki vide order
dated 04.09.2012. Sanad Lambardari was also issued to the petitioner by
the District Collector on 28.12.2012. The appeal filed by respondent No.4
was dismissed by the Commissioner vide his order dated 24.04.2014.
However, the learned Financial Commissioner set aside both the orders of
the Collector as well as the Commissioner in the revision petition filed by
respondent No.4. Learned Financial Commissioner has observed in the
impugned order that respondent was younger in age; belongs to the
Lambardar family and he has the experience for performing the duties of
Lambardar.
As per settled proposition of law by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the judgment titled as Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram, 2009(1)
RCR(Civil) 757, a candidate who is younger in age should have been
given the preference.
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115492
CWP No.11574 of 2016 -6- 2023:PHHC:115492
This Court in "Sukhjinder Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
others", 2016(3)R.C.R.(Civil)725, while dealing with the same question
has held as under:-
14. It is pertinent to mention here that the appointment of
Lambardar is primarily the prerogative and
administrative act of the District Collector. The selection
made by him is normally not to be undone unless and until
it is shown that the same suffers from gross irregularity,
perversity or there is some patent error in the
appointment."
It is the settled principle of law that the Choice of the
Collector should not be normally disturbed unless some grave discrepancy
is observed in the appointment. The judgment relied upon by learned
counsel for the petitioner passed in Daya Ram's case (supra) is fully
applicable in the present case. Perusal of the impugned order passed by
learned Financial Commissioner would show that no cogent reasons have
been assigned by the learned Financial Commissioner in setting aside both
the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner.
This Court in "Lal Singh vs. Financial Commissioner (Ap-
peals) and others", CWP No.14821 of 2019 has held as under:
"Admittedly, the petitioner has been serving as
Serberah Lambardar and also has 32 bighas of land. The
hereditary claim is no more right which can be claimed as an
aspect in itself and being a Serberah Lambardar would give
him obviously more experience over a candidate who has not
performed the said duties but inspite of his experience,
however being Serberah Lambardar the said benefit cannot
be claimed for the purpose of preferential right for
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115492
CWP No.11574 of 2016 -7- 2023:PHHC:115492
consideration of appointment in case the other factors are if
not identical/similar here."
However, in the considered opinion of this Court, the view
taken by learned Financial Commissioner suffers from patent illegality and
thus, the impugned order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the learned Financial
Commissioner is totally contrary to the law settled and being perverse is
hereby set aside. The orders passed by the learned Collector dated
04.09.2012 and the learned Commissioner dated 24.04.2014 are upheld.
Resultantly, the present petition stands allowed in the abovesaid terms.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
01.09.2023 JUDGE
rittu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115492
7 of 7
