Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inderjit Singh vs Financial Commissioner (Revenue) ... on 24 April, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056056
CWP No.3552 of 2017 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:056056
240
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.3552 of 2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 24.04.2024
Inderjit Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab 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. Tushar Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
CM-14504-CWP-2021
Instant application has been filed for placing on record reply
on behalf of respondent No.4 by way of affidavit along with its
accompanying Annexure R-1.
For the reasons recorded in the application, reply on behalf
of respondent No.4 by way of an affidavit along with Annexure R-1 is
ordered to be taken on record.
Application stands allowed.
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056056
CWP No.3552 of 2017 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:056056
CWP-3552-2017
1. Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the
impugned order dated 03.08.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent
No.1 as well as order dated 19.11.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by
respondent No.2 and order dated 18.02.2014 (Annnexure P-3) passed by
respondent No.3 respectively being illegal and contrary to law as well as
against the facts proved on record. Further prayer has been made for
directing respondent No.3 to appoint the petitioner as Lambardar being
more meritorious and suitable candidate in comparison to respondent
No.4 and to issue Sanad Lambardari in favour of the petitioner and for
staying the operation of impugned orders dated 03.08.2016, 19.11.2014
and 18.02.2014.
2. Adumbrated facts of the case are that on the death of earlier
Lambardar namely, Gurnam Singh of village Attargarh on 14.12.2011,
the post of lambardar in the village fell vacant and thus, the process for
appointment of new lambardar was initiated in the village. As a result,
the proclamation was made for inviting the applications from
interested/eligible candidates. In pursuance to the same, six applications
were received including that of the petitioner, namely, Inderjit Singh and
respondent No.4, namely, Gurdeep Singh. Their character verifications
were got conducted from the concerned police station. On the
appreciation of inter se merits of the candidates in the fray, the Assistant
Collector 1st Grade, Dhanola recommended the name of respondent No.4
i.e. Gurdeep Singh for the appointment of lambardar. On hearing the
candidates, the learned Collector vide his order dated 13.09.2012
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056056
CWP No.3552 of 2017 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:056056
appointed the candidate, namely, Darbara Singh as lambardar of the
village. However being aggrieved by the same, two separate appeals were
filed by the candidates, namely, Gurdeep Singh i.e. respondent No.4 and
Inderjit Singh i.e. the petitioner before the learned Commissioner, who
vide his order dated 24.07.2013, remanded the case to the Collector for a
decision afresh. Thus, the Collector re-considered the merits and demerits
of all the candidates in the fray. On the evaluation of merits of the
candidates, the Collector again found respondent No.4 i.e. Gurdeep Singh
to be more suitable and thus, he appointed respondent No.4 as lambardar
of the village vide his order dated 18.02.2014. Being aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner and co-applicant, namely, Dalbar Singh filed their
independent appeals under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act
before the learned Commissioner, Patiala. All the parties were heard by
the Appellate Court, however finding no infirmity in the order passed by
the Collector, both the appeals were dismissed by the learned
Commissioner vide his order dated 19.11.2014. Still being aggrieved, the
petitioner and Dalbar Singh filed their separate revision petitions under
Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the learned
Financial Commissioner assailing the order passed by the Collector and
the Commissioner. However the learned Financial Commissioner on re-
hearing the case, found no infirmity in the impugned orders passed and
thus dismissed the revision petitions vide his order dated 03.08.2016.
Thus the order passed by the Collector was affirmed by both the
Appellate and Revisional Court. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court
by way of filing the present writ petition.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056056
CWP No.3552 of 2017 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:056056
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the
appreciation of inter se merits of both the petitioner and respondent No.4,
it was found as follows:
Merits Inderjit Singh Gurdeep Singh
Age 57 years 32 years
Education Graduate 10+2
Hereditary claim Yes No
Lambardari Experience Worked as Sarbrah No
lambardar
Land 8 Acres 10 Acre
Recommendations Tehsildar Naib Tehsildar & SDM
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was a matured person and graduate by qualification. He
submits that the petitioner worked as Sarbrah lambardar of the village
and had more than 7 acres of land. He has submitted that the petitioner
thus was more meritorious than respondent No.4. However the learned
Collector failed to appreciate the same and thus illegally appointed
respondent No.4 as lambardar of the village. He submits that respondent
No.4 belongs to a political party which has been ignored by the learned
Collector. He also submits that the petitioner on the other hand was
discharged in a criminal complaint vide judgment dated 01.09.2014 and
thus, as per the law settled, mere pendency of the criminal complaint
would not amount to any disqualification of the petitioner. He submits
that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the same and thus, by
passing the cryptic orders have declined the candidature of the petitioner.
Hence, he submits that the impugned orders being unsustainable in the
eyes of law, deserve to be set aside.
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056056
CWP No.3552 of 2017 (O&M) -5- 2024:PHHC:056056
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has
vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner. He has submitted that on the bare perusal of inter se merits of
both the candidates, it is apparent that respondent No.4 was much
younger in age than the petitioner. Besides this, respondent No.4 was
10+2 by qualification. He submits that on the appreciation of merits of
respondent No.4, the Naib Tehsildar & SDM recommended his name for
the appointment of lambardar. He submits that on the evaluation of
overall merits of all the candidates, the learned Collector found
respondent No.4 to be most suitable candidate and thus, rightly appointed
him as lambardar of the village. He submits that the appeals filed by the
petitioner and co-applicant, namely, Dalbar Singh were dismissed by the
learned Commissioner vide his order dated 19.11.2014 and the
Revisional Court also upheld the order passed by the learned Collector
and the learned Commissioner vide his order dated 03.08.2016. He
further submits that as per the law settled, Collector is the prime authority
for appointment of the Lambardar and his choice cannot be interfered
with in a cavalier manner and the same can be interfered with in the
situation when the same suffers from patent illegality or perversity. He
thus submits that there being no perversity in the impugned orders
passed, the present petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be
dismissed.
6. Heard.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance. It is apparent that on the initiation of
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056056
CWP No.3552 of 2017 (O&M) -6- 2024:PHHC:056056
process for appointment of lambardar, the applications were invited and
on receiving the same, the merits and demerits of all the candidates were
duly appreciated. Respondent No.4 was found to be younger in age and
10+2 by qualification. His candidature was recommended by Naib
Tehsildar & SDM and finding him more suitable, the learned Collector
appointed him as lambardar of the village. The same was challenged by
the petitioner and co-applicant, namely, Dalbar Singh. However the
learned Commissioner found no merit in the same and thus, dismissed
both the appeals filed by them. It was further assailed before the learned
Financial Commissioner, however both the petitioner and Dalbar Singh
failed to substantiate their claim before the Revisional Court as well.
Thus, the learned Financial Commissioner dismissed both the revision
petitions. As per the law settled, the choice of the Collector cannot be
interfered unless the same suffers from any perversity.
8. The Collector is the prime authority for appointment of the
Lambardar and his choice cannot be interfered with in a cavalier manner
and the same can be interfered with only in the situation when the same
suffers from patent illegality or perversity.
9. However, in the over all facts and circumstances of the case
and in the light of law settled, this Court does not find any perversity in
the impugned orders passed. All the Revenue Authorities i.e. the
Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner have taken
a concurrent view in favour of respondent No.4. This Court in "Hakam
Singh vs. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others",
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056056
CWP No.3552 of 2017 (O&M) -7- 2024:PHHC:056056
2016(4) RCR (Civil) 335 while dealing with the same question has held
as under:-
"3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of
the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the
contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that
since all the three revenue authorities have recorded their
concurrent findings of fact, which have been found duly
supported by sound reasons, the impugned orders deserves to
be upheld."
10. The same view was taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court in "Ravinder Singh vs. Financial Commissioner (Revenue),
Punjab Chandigarh and others", 2012(68) RCR (Civil) 288.
11. Thus, this Court finds no substantial reason to differ from
the findings rendered by the Authorities below and hence, 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
