Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh vs Financial Commissioner Punjab And Ors on 24 April, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056134
CWP No.14289 of 2018 -1- 2024:PHHC:056134
249
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.14289 of 2018
Date of Decision: 24.04.2024
Bhupinder Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
1. Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the
impugned order dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned
Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh as well as order dated
14.09.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Divisional
Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide which Ld. Courts
mentioned above had unnecessarily interfered in the well reasoned order
dated 10.02.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned District
Collector, Patiala in the matter relating to the appointment of Lambardar
for the village Gurditpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala as the learned
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056134
CWP No.14289 of 2018 -2- 2024:PHHC:056134
District Collector, Patiala while evaluating the merits and candidature of
the respective parties had appointed the petitioner on the aforesaid post
and there appeared to be no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the
aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Collector and therefore, order
dated 14.09.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Commissioner,
Patiala Division, Patiala and order dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure P-3)
passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh are
illegal, void and without jurisdiction, passed without application of mind
and illegal and are liable to be set aside under the writ jurisdiction of this
Court. Further prayer has been made for staying the operation of
impugned orders dated 14.09.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned
Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and order dated 26.02.2018
(Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab,
Chandigarh.
2. Adumbrated facts of the case are that this is the second
round of litigation between the parties. On the death of earlier Lambardar
namely, Hari Singh, the post of lambardar in village Gurditpur, Tehsil
Rajpura, District Patiala fell vacant. Thus, the process for appointment of
new lambardar was initiated in the village. On conducting the
proclamation, applications were invited from the interested/eligible
candidates. In pursuance to the same, the petitioner and respondent No.4
also applied for the same. On the evaluation of their inter se merits, the
District Collector, Patiala appointed the petitioner, namely, Bhupinder
Singh as lambardar of the village vide his order dated 02.07.2008.
However, respondent No.4, namely, Manjit Singh filed an appeal before
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056134
CWP No.14289 of 2018 -3- 2024:PHHC:056134
the learned Commissioner, who accepted the same and remanded the
case for decision afresh to the Collector vide his order dated 04.07.2009.
Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the
learned Financial Commissioner. However the learned Financial
Commissioner finding no merit in the same, dismissed the appeal filed by
the petitioner and directed the parties to appear before the Collector on
18.01.2009 for further proceedings. Thus, the learned Collector
conducted the fresh proceedings for re-hearing of the case. On the
appreciation of merits of the petitioner, he was found to be 54 years of
age and matric by qualification. Besides this, he owned 25 kanals of land.
The petitioner also faced criminal prosecution for the offence punishable
under Section 408 IPC. On the other hand, respondent No.4 was found to
be 34 years of age and 10+2 by qualification. He had also done diploma
from ITI. Besides this, he owned 23 kanals of land in the village. He
never faced the criminal prosecution in any case. On the evaluation of
inter se merits of both the candidates, the learned Collector again
appointed the petitioner, namely, Bhupinder Singh as lambardar of the
village vide his order dated 10.02.2010. Being aggrieved by the same,
respondent No.4 filed an appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land
Revenue Act, 1887 before the learned Commissioner, who heard both the
sides and re-appreciated the evidence on record. He found the view taken
by the learned Collector to be perverse and thus, set aside the same by
accepting the appeal filed by respondent No.4 and appointed respondent
No.4, namely, Manjit Singh as lambardar of the village vide his order
dated 14.09.2011. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056134
CWP No.14289 of 2018 -4- 2024:PHHC:056134
appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before
the learned Financial Commissioner. However on hearing both the sides,
the learned Financial Commissioner found no merit in the appeal filed by
the petitioner and thus, upheld the order passed by the learned
Commissioner by dismissing the appeal vide his order dated 26.02.2018.
Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present writ
petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this
Court that on the evaluation of merits of both the candidates, it is
apparent that the petitioner is a matured person and matric by
qualification. He submits that the petitioner remained as Sarbrah
lambardar of the village and the lower authorities have also
recommended his name for the appointment of lambardar. He submits
that filing of the case under Section 408 IPC had no bearing on his
candidature. He has submitted that on finding the petitioner to be more
meritorious, he was appointed by the Collector as lambardar of the
village. He submits that as per the law settled, the order passed by the
Collector cannot be interfered unless it suffers from any perversity. He
submits that there being no perversity in the order passed by the
Collector, the Court of learned Commissioner and that of the learned
Financial Commissioner have fallen in error in setting aside the well
reasoned order passed by the Collector, which is against the law settled.
He thus submits that the impugned order being unsustainable in the eyes
of law deserve to be set aside. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel
for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by this Court in
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056134
CWP No.14289 of 2018 -5- 2024:PHHC:056134
"Amarjit Kaur vs. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab and
others", 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 961 and "Rattan Singh vs. Financial
Commissioner, Appeals, Punjab and another", 2016(3) RCR(Civil)
653.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has opposed
the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has
submitted that admittedly respondent No.4 was younger in age and being
12th pass was more qualified than the petitioner. He has submitted that
respondent No.4 had an impeccable record as he faced no criminal
prosecution in any case. However as evident the petitioner faced the
criminal prosecution under Section 408 IPC. On this account, he was
dismissed from service of the Cooperative Society where he was serving.
He has submitted that the petitioner thus was disqualified for
consideration for the post of lambardar, however the learned Collector
miserably failed to appreciate the same and thus, the learned
Commissioner had rightly set aside the perverse order passed by the
Collector by appointing respondent No.4 as lambardar of the village,
which was further rightly upheld by the learned Financial Commissioner.
He has submitted that in the first round of litigation as well, the Collector
had appointed the petitioner as lambardar of the village, which was set
aside by the learned Commissioner by remanding the case to the
Collector for decision afresh. However the learned Collector again
illegally appointed the petitioner as lambardar of the village, which was
duly rectified by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities by setting
aside the same. He submits that as per the settled proposition of law held
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056134
CWP No.14289 of 2018 -6- 2024:PHHC:056134
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 be given the preference, whereas the learned Collector has
miserably failed to appreciate the same and thus, there being no
perversity in the impugned orders passed, the present petition being
devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard.
6. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record with their able assistance. As evident, this is the
second round of litigation between both the sides. Though on
appreciation of the merits and demerits of both the candidates, it is
apparent that respondent No.4 was younger in age and more qualified
than the petitioner. Besides this, he had a neat and clean record whereas
the petitioner, who was an employee in the Cooperative Society, faced
criminal prosecution under Section 408 IPC for the embezzlement and
thus as evident from the record, was dismissed from the service. Even
though as argued before this Court, he was acquitted by the trial Court
which in itself does not give him an edge over respondent No.4, who was
younger in age, more qualified and had an impeccable record. However,
the learned Collector had failed to appreciate the same and thus, illegally
appointed the petitioner twice as lambardar of the village.
7. There is no gainsaying that appointment of the lambardar is
primarily the prerogative of the Collector whose opinion should not be
interfered in a cavalier manner except there being the perversity or patent
illegality. In view of the overwhelming evidence on record, the order
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056134
CWP No.14289 of 2018 -7- 2024:PHHC:056134
passed by the Collector suffers from perversity and hence, the learned
Commissioner had rightly set aside the same by appointing respondent
No.4 as lambardar of the village. The learned Financial Commissioner
also agreed with the same and thus, upheld the order passed by the
learned Commissioner holding the order passed by the Collector to be
perverse. As per the settled proposition of law held 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 be
given the preference, whereas the learned Collector has miserably failed
to appreciate the same.
8. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law held in the
authorities cited by learned counsel for the petitioner but the same are
distinguishable on the facts of the present case.
9. Weighing the facts and circumstances of the present case
and on the anvil of the law settled, this Court does not find any reason to
interfere with the view taken by the learned Financial Commissioner.
Thus, the present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
24.04.2024 JUDGE
rittu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
