Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bahadur Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 5 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118161
CWP-15823-2023 -1- 2023:PHHC:118161
116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-15823-2023
Date of decision : 05.09.2023
Bahadur Singh .....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present :- Mr. J.S. Mundi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate
for respondent No.6.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the impugned
order dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.1,
dismissing the ROR (Annexure P-5), in limine, without discussing the
settled proposition of law and the judgments passed by this Court in
highly illegally, arbitrary, discriminatory and perverse manner and thus,
not sustainable in the eyes of law. Further prayer has been made that the
order dated 30.11.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2 may
kindly be restored and the case be remanded back to Deputy
Commissioner-cum-District Collector.
Adumbrated facts of the case are that on the death of earlier
Lambardar namely, Gurdev Singh, the post of Lambardar fell vacant in
the Village on 01.03.2018. Resultantly, the process for the appointment of
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118161
CWP-15823-2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:118161
new Lambardar was initiated on 13.03.2019. The mustri munadi was
conducted by the Tehsildar, Roopnagar for inviting the applications from
the eligible candidates. In pursuance to the same, five applications were
received from the candidates namely, Kulwinder Singh son of Jaspal
Singh; Bahadur Singh son of Dalip Singh (petitioner); Sukhwinder Singh
son of Gajra Singh; Karam Singh son of Ganga Singh and Kulwinder
Singh son of Jai Dev Singh (respondent No.6). The candidates were heard
personally. On verification of their record, petitioner Bahadur Singh was
found to be 60 years of age and by qualification, he was 5th pass. Besides
this, he owned 20 kanals 18 marlas 04 sarsai of land whereas, respondent
No.6-Kulwinder Singh was found to be 36 years of age and by
qualification, he was 12th pass. Besides this, he owned 13 kanals 08
marlas of land. Thus, out of all the candidates, the Assistant Collector 1st
Grade, Roopnagar recommended the name of Bahadur Singh i.e.
petitioner to be the Lambardar of the Village vide his order dated
04.09.2019. However, learned District Collector on appreciation of the
inter se merits of all the candidates and the recommendations made by the
subordinate officers, found Kulwinder Singh i.e. respondent No.6 to be
more suitable and thus, appointed him as Lambardar of the Village vide
order dated 07.09.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed an
appeal before the Commissioner, Roopnagar, however, learned
Commissioner did not agree with the appointment made by the District
Collector and thus, accepted the appeal by remanding the case back to the
Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Roopnagar for a decision
afresh vide his order dated 30.11.2021. Aggrieved by this order,
respondent No.6 filed the appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118161
CWP-15823-2023 -3- 2023:PHHC:118161
Revenue Act, 1887 (as amended upto date) before learned Financial
Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh. However, learned
Financial Commissioner after hearing both the sides and perusing the
record found the appointment made by the District Collector to be more
rational and hence, accepted the appeal filed by respondent No.6 by
upholding the order passed by learned District Collector. Thus, aggrieved
by the order of learned Financial Commissioner, petitioner is before this
Court by way of filing the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended
that respondent No.6 after applying for the post of Lambardar had
withdrawn his application but despite that, he has been appointed by the
Collector as Lambardar. He has invited the attention of this Court to the
statement annexed as Annexure P-1 to this petition wherein the
respondent No.6 had deposed that if Sukhwinder Singh son of Garja
Singh is appointed as Lambardar of Village than he would have no
objection regarding the same. He submits that once respondent No.6 had
withdrawn his application, he was no more eligible for the post of
Lambardar and thus, his appointment is totally beyond the evidence on
record. It is submitted that petitioner being elder in age is more mature
and has rich experience required for discharging the duty of Lambardar.
He has submitted that the petitioner owns more land than that of
respondent No.6 which was rightly appreciated by the Commissioner and
hence the case was remanded by the Commissioner vide his order dated
30.11.2021 for decision afresh. However, learned Financial
Commissioner-respondent No.1 has totally ignored the same and illegally
set aside the well reasoned order passed by the Commissioner. He
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118161
CWP-15823-2023 -4- 2023:PHHC:118161
submits that the impugned order being unsustainable in the eyes of law,
deserve to be set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.6 has
vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.
He has submitted that respondent No.6 had withdrawn his application is
totally a mis-interpretation of the statement made by him. He has
submitted that the respondent No.6 had simply made the statement that in
case Sukhwinder Singh is appointed as Lambardar, he would have no
objection. He has submitted that by no stretch of imagination, the same
can be treated as withdrawal of the application filed by respondent No.6
for being appointed as Lambardar. He submits that learned Collector had
duly appreciated the antecedents of both the candidates and on perusing
their inter se merits, respondent No.6 was rightly appointed as Lambardar
of the Village. He has submitted that the findings arrived at by the
Commissioner were totally beyond the facts and circumstances of the case
and hence, the same being unsustainable in the eyes of law and were
rightly set aside by respondent No.1-Financial Commissioner. He submits
that the learned Financial Commissioner re-appreciated the evidence
arrived at by the Collector. As evident, it was found that respondent No.6
was younger in age and more qualified than that of the petitioner and
hence, he was rightly appointed by the Collector which has also been
upheld by the learned Financial Commissioner.
Heard. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing
the record, it is apparent that the process for the appointment of
Lambardar of the Village was initiated on account of death of earlier
Lambardar namely, Gurdev Singh. The mustri munadi was conducted by
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118161
CWP-15823-2023 -5- 2023:PHHC:118161
the Tehsildar, Roopnagar for inviting the applications from the eligible
candidates. In pursuance to the same, five applications were received
from the candidates. On comparing inter se merits of the candidates, the
petitioner-Bahadur Singh was found to be 60 years of age and he was 5th
pass. Besides this, he owned 20 kanals 18 marlas 04 sarsai of land
whereas, respondent No.6-Kulwinder Singh was found to be 36 years of
age and he was 12th pass. Besides this, he owned 13 kanals 08 marlas of
land. On analysis of their inter se merits, the Assistant Collector 1st
Grade, Roopnagar found petitioner-Bahadur Singh to be the most suitable
candidate and thus, recommended his name for appointment as
Lambardar of the Village vide his order dated 04.09.2019. Learned
District Collector on appreciation of the inter se merits of all candidates
and also after considering the recommendations made by the Subordinate
Officer, appointed respondent No.6 as Lambardar of the Village vide
order dated 07.09.2020. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an appeal
before the Commissioner, Roopnagar who accepted the same and
remanded the case back to the District Collector for decision afresh. On
further challenge of this order by respondent No.6, learned Financial
Commissioner, Punjab found the order of Collector to be rational and as
such accepted the appeal filed by respondent No.6 upholding his
appointment as Lambardar by the order of District Collector. It is a settled
law that choice of the Collector should not be interfered until and unless
it suffers from perversity.
In Sukhjinder Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others,
2016(3)R.C.R.(Civil)725, this Court while dealing with the same question
has held as under:-
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118161
CWP-15823-2023 -6- 2023:PHHC:118161
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.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the order dated
02.02.2023 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab does not suffer
from any illegality or perversity and as such, the same is upheld.
Consequently, the present petition being devoid of any merits is hereby
dismissed.
( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
05.09.2023 JUDGE
m. sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:118161
6 of 6
