Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lachhman Ram vs Financial Commissioner Punjab And Ors on 10 April, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049643
CWP-5922-2018 -1- 2024:PHHC:049643
225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-5922-2018
Date of Decision: 10.04.2024
Lachhman Ram ..... Petitioner
Versus
Financial Commissioner Revenue and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr.Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajeev K.Takkar, DAG, Punjab.
Mr.Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.
1. Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the order dated
19.02.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.1 in ROR No.874 of
2016 and order dated 04.10.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent
No.2 vide which well reasoned and speaking order dated 27.05.2015
(Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.3 appointing the petitioners as
Lambardar of village Khanewal, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala, has been
wrongly set aside and respondent No.4 has been appointed as Lambardar of
the village in violation to the settled proposition of law laid down by this
Court in case of Daya Ram vs. Bhagwan and others.
2. This is the second round of litigation regarding appointment of
SC Lambardar of village Khanewal, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala between
the petitioner and respondent No.4.
3. As emanated from the facts of the case, on account of death of
Lal Singh, earlier SC Lambardar of village Khanewal, Tehsil Patran,
District Patiala, post of Lambardar fell vacant and thus, process for the
appointment of new Lambardar was initiated. Proclamation was conducted
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049643
CWP-5922-2018 -2- 2024:PHHC:049643
in the village for inviting applications from the interested and eligible
candidates. In pursuance to the same, Lachhman Ram (petitioner) and Beera
Ram (respondent No.4) alongwith the other candidates applied for the same.
Learned Collector on finding the petitioner to be meritorious appointed him
as Lambardar of the village vide order dated 18.09.2013 (Annexure P-1).
However, being aggrieved respondent No.4 alongwith co-applicant Gurjant
Singh assailed the same by way of their independent appeals before the
Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. Learned Divisional
Commissioner after hearing both the appeals together, rejected the appeal
filed by co-appellant Gurjant Singh, however, accepted the appeal filed by
respondent No.4 and thus, remanded the case to the District Collector for
decision afresh vide his order dated 12.03.2014 (Annexure P-2). On remand
learned Collector evaluated the inter-se merits of the candidates afresh,
however, he again found the petitioner to be more meritorious and thus,
appointed him as Lambardar of the village vide order dated 27.05.2015
(Annexure P-3). Being aggrieved respondent No.4 and co-appellant Gurjant
Singh assailed the same by way of their independent appeals before the
Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. Both the appeals were
heard together. After hearing all the sides, learned Commissioner rejected
the appeal filed by Gurjant Singh, whereas, accepted the appeal filed by
respondent No.4-Beera Singh by appointing him as Lambardar of the
village vide order dated 04.10.2016 (Annexure P-4). Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab
Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the learned Financial Commissioner, who
heard both the sides and re-appreciated the record, however, finding no
perversity in the order passed by the Commissioner, dismissed the revision
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049643
CWP-5922-2018 -3- 2024:PHHC:049643
vide order dated 19.02.2018 (Annexure P-5). Hence, aggrieved by the same,
the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contented
that on comparison of the inter-se merits of the candidates, the petitioner
was found to be 48 years of age and 5th class pass by qualification. Besides
this, he was the son of deceased Lambardar. He submits that the revenue
authorities had rather recommended the name of the petitioner for his
appointment as Lambardar of the village. He has submitted that finding the
petitioner to be meritorious, the petitioner was appointed Lambardar of the
village by the Collector in the first round as well as in the second round of
litigation. He submits that learned Commissioner has illegally accepted the
appeal filed by respondent No.4, which is contrary to the law settled. He
submits that appointment of Lambardar is prerogative of the Collector and
the order passed by the Collector cannot be interfered unless the same
suffers from any perversity, however, there being no perversity, learned
Commissioner has illegally set aside the same. He submits that learned
Financial Commissioner has equally fallen in error in upholding the same.
He relies upon the judgment of this Court in Jagdish Singh vs. State of
Punjab and others, 2014(36) RCR (Civil) 157. He further submits that the
impugned orders being unsustainable in the eyes of law, deserve to be set
aside.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has vehemently opposed
the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has
submitted that on bare perusal of the merits of both the candidates, it is
apparent that respondent No.4 was 40 years of age and 10 class pass and
thus, he was younger then the petitioner and more qualified than him. He
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049643
CWP-5922-2018 -4- 2024:PHHC:049643
submits that learned Collector appointed the petitioner giving him the
benefit of hereditary claim, which has been held to be unconstitutional. He
submits that as per settled law, the candidate younger in age should get the
preference for the appointment of Lambardar. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram and others, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 757 has
held that for the appointment of Lambardar, age of the candidate is a
relevant factor. He submits that thus, it is evident that the order passed by
the Collector was found to be perverse, so learned Commissioner had
rightly set aside the same, which was duly upheld by learned Financial
Commissioner as well. He submits that respondent No.4 is working as
Lambardar of the village since the date of his appointment. He submits that
the impugned orders suffer from no infirmity whatsoever and thus, the
present petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed.
6. The Court has heard counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
7. Admittedly, this is the second round of litigation between the
parties. On the evaluation of the merits of both the candidates i.e. the
petitioner and respondent No.4, learned Collector appointed the petitioner
as Lambardar of the village in the first round of litigation, however, in the
appeal filed by respondent No.4, the case was remanded to the Collector for
decision afresh. On remand, learned Collector again appointed the petitioner
as Lambardar of the village. On comparison of the inter-se merits of both
these candidates, it is evident that respondent No.4 was younger in age and
more qualified than the petitioner. There was nothing adverse against
respondent No.4, however, learned Collector had taken into consideration
the hereditary claim of the petitioner and thus, appointed him as Lambardar
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049643
CWP-5922-2018 -5- 2024:PHHC:049643
of the village. Finding this order to be perverse, learned Commissioner set
aside the same by appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village,
which is upheld by the Financial Commissioner. There is no gainsaying that
as per law settled, appointment of the Lambardar is prerogative of the
Collector. The Appellate and Revisional Authorities can interfere in the
same only in the situation when the same is found to be perverse.
8. There is no dispute regarding the judgment relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner, however, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the same is distinguishable.
9. This Court finds that learned Commissioner was right to the
extent of exercising his jurisdiction in setting aside the order passed by the
Collector, however, he not only set aside the order passed by the Collector,
but appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village. Thus, this Court
is of the considered opinion that both the Appellate and Revisional
authorities have fallen in error in appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar
of the village after setting aside the order passed by the Collector. Thus,
both these orders dated 19.02.2018 and order dated 04.10.2016 are set aside
to the extent of appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village and
the order stands modified by remanding the case to the Collector for passing
the order afresh after taking into consideration the merits and demerits of
both the candidates.
10. The Collector is directed to evaluate the merits and demerits of
the both the candidates afresh in the light of the law settled. Fresh order
would be passed after hearing both the sides expeditiously preferably within
three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
11. It is being clarified that as submitted before this Court,
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049643
CWP-5922-2018 -6- 2024:PHHC:049643
respondent No.4 is already working as Lambardar of the village and thus, he
would continue to work as Lambardar of the village till the fresh order is
passed by the Collector in accordance with law.
12. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Collector
concerned, who on receipt of the same would issue notice to the parties for
appearance and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
13. The present petition stands disposed of in abovesaid terms.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
10.04.2024 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
