Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarup Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 April, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055975
CWP-22993-2017 -1- 2024:PHHC:055975
233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-22993-2017
Date of Decision: 22.04.2024
Sarup Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr.Anish Setia, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate for
respondent No.5.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.
1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the impugned
order dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Financial
Commissioner (Revenue) and order dated 01.12.2016 (Annexure P-4)
passed by the Commissioner, Roopnagar Division, Roopnagar being wholly
illegal, unjust and unsustainable.
2. Adumbrated facts of the case are that on account of death of
Charan Singh, earlier Lambardar of the village on 04.11.2010, post of
Lambardar fell vacant and thus, process for the appointment of new
Lambardar was initiated. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawanshr
granted sanctioned to Tehsildar, Nawanshahr for taking further action vide
his order dated 12.01.2011. Resultantly, proclamation was made in the
village for inviting applications from the interested and eligible candidates.
In pursuance to the same, nine applications were received including the
petitioner (Sarup Singh) and respondent No.5 (Jawinder Singh). Their
character verifications were conducted from the concerned Police Station.
On comparison of their inter-se merits, the petitioner was found to be 53
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055975
CWP-22993-2017 -2- 2024:PHHC:055975
years of age and BA pass and Degree in Electrical. Besides this he owned 2
acres of land and he was also found to be an ex-serivceman having retired
from Navy. On the other hand, respondent No.5 was found to be 38 years of
age and martic pass by qualification. Besides this he owned 6 kanals of
land. Learned SDM, Nawanshahr vide his report dated 20.06.2011,
recommended the name of respondent No.5 for the appointment of
Lambardar. However, learned Collector on evaluation of the inter-se merits
and demerits of all the candidates, found the petitioner to be more
meritorious and suitable candidate and thus, appointed him as a Lambardar
of the village vide order dated 15.09.2011 (Annexure P-2). Aggrieved by
the same, the respondent No.5- Jaswinder Singh and co-appellant Piara
Singh filed their independent appeals before the Commissioner, Roopnagar
Division, Roopnagar. Both the appeals were heard together by learned
Divisional Commissioner and after hearing all the sides, he found that
appellant Piara Singh had died and thus, his appeal was dismissed, however,
the appeal filed by respondent No.5 was accepted and thus, he was
appointed as a Lambardar of village vide order dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure
P-4). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 13
of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the Financial Commissioner.
Learned Financial Commissioner heard both the sides and re-appreciated
the record, however, finding no merit in the appeal, he dismissed the same
vide order dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure P-6) and thus, upheld the order
passed by the Commissioner. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended
that on perusal of the inter-se merits of all the candidates in fray, it is
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055975
CWP-22993-2017 -3- 2024:PHHC:055975
apparent that the petitioner was more meritorious and suitable candidate. He
submits that the petitioner was more qualified and was retired from Navy. It
is submitted that the petitioner rendered his service to the nation and thus, in
view of the provisions of Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, he
was obviously most meritorious candidate and thus, was rightly appointed
by the Collector as a Lambardar of the village. He submits that the
petitioner is a resident of village and as per record, it was established that he
had a Pucca house in the village and he also owned land in the village. He
has submitted that respondent No.5 had encroached upon the Gram
Panchayat land, but the same was not appreciated by the Appellate and
Revisional authorities. He has submitted that as per law settled, choice of
the Collector cannot be interfered with in a cavalier manner and there being
no perversity in the order passed by the Collector, the same could not have
been interfered with by the Appellate and Revisional authorities. He has
submitted that learned Appellate and Revisional authorities have wrongly
held that the petitioner would not be available for discharging his duties as a
Lambardar as his availability is not possible in the village, which is totally
against the evidence on record. He has relied upon the judgment of this
Court in Mahender Singh vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others,
2007 (10) RCR (Civil) 939. He further submits that in the overall facts and
circumstances of the case and the law settled, the impugned orders being
unsustainable in the eyes of law, deserve to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 has vehemently
opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has
submitted that on the comparison of inter-se merits of all the candidates,
evidently respondent No.5 was much younger in age and besides this, he is
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055975
CWP-22993-2017 -4- 2024:PHHC:055975
matric pass and owned 6 Kanals of land in the village. He further submits
that respondent No.5 would always be available in the village for
discharging the duties as a Lambardar of the village. It is submitted that
learned Collector had failed to appreciate the same and thus, order passed
by the Collector being perverse was rightly set aside by learned
Commissioner by appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar of the village.
It is submitted that as per law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram and others, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 757, for
the appointment of Lambardar, age of the candidate is a relevant factor. He
further submits that the allegations regarding encroachment against
respondent No.5 are totally without any evidence and thus, the same cannot
be taken into consideration in the absence of any evidence on record. He
submits that the petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record with their able assistance, it is apparent that on the issuance of
proclamation, nine applications were received including the applications of
the petitioner and respondent No.5. On comparison of the inter-se merits,
the SDM recommended the name of respondent No.5, however, learned
Collector on the evaluation of the inter-se merits of all candidates, found the
petitioner to be more meritorious and thus, appointed him as a Lambardar of
the village. However, in the appeal filed by respondent No.5, learned
Commissioner found that the petitioner does not live in the village all the
times, whereas, respondent No.5 is an agriculturist and he would be
available in the village for discharging the duties of Lambardar. Thus, he
found the order passed by the Collector to be perverse, as availability of the
petitioner in the village was not taken into consideration and finding
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055975
CWP-22993-2017 -5- 2024:PHHC:055975
respondent No.5 to be most suitable candidate for the appointment of
Lambardar, set aside the order passed by the Collector and appointed him as
Lambardar of the village. The view taken by the Commissioner was further
upheld by learned Financial Commissioner.
6. There is no doubt that the petitioner is an ex-serviceman and is
more qualified than respondent No.5, however, learned Collector is to
consider the overall merits and assess the suitability of all the candidates in
fray. Even if the petitioner is more qualified and an ex-serviceman that in
itself would not be sufficient to find him suitable for the appointment of
Lambardar when his availability in the village is seriously under dispute. It
has been found that though the petitioner has house and land in the village,
but he lives in Kharar and thus, his availability in the village was not found
to be feasible. Thus, learned Commissioner has rightly found the order
passed by Collector to be perverse and hence, rightly set aside the same by
appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar of the village. This view was
further upheld by learned Financial Commissioner as well.
7. There is no denial to the arguments raised by counsel for the
petitioner that as per law settled, the view taken by the Collector cannot be
interfered with in a cavalier manner, however, as per law settled, if the same
is found to be perverse and patently illegal, then Appellate and Revisional
authorities are will within their jurisdiction to interfere with the same.
Besides this, respondent No.5 was younger in age as well and as per law
settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh's case (supra), the
candidate younger in age should be given preference for the appointment of
Lambardar. There is no dispute regarding the judgment relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner, however, in the facts and circumstances
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055975
CWP-22993-2017 -6- 2024:PHHC:055975
of the case, the same is distinguishable.
8. Thus, being devoid of any merit, the present petition is hereby
dismissed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
22.04.2024 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
