Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh Bhatoya vs Financial Commissioner And Ors on 29 April, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059406
CWP-18471-2019 -1- 2024:PHHC:059406
102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-18471-2019
Date of Decision: 29.04.2024
Paramjit Singh Bhatoya ..... Petitioner
Versus
Financial Commissioner (Appeals) and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr.Naveen Batra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Navneet Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate for
respondent No.4.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.
1. Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the order dated
22.10.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Financial Commissioner,
Punjab, order dated 26.08.2014 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned
Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and order dated 08.11.2011
(Annexure P-1) passed by learned Deputy Commissioner-cum-District
Collector, Hoshiarpur, vide which respondent No.4 is appointed as
Lambardar of the village Bhunga, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, as the
same are against the facts and settled principles of law and being perverse
are liable to be set aside by appointing the petitioner as Lambardar of the
village.
2. Adumbrated facts of the case are that on account of death of
Lachhman Dass, earlier SC Lambardar of the village Bhunga, Tehsil and
District Hoshiarpur on 31.07.2009, post of SC Lambardar fell vacant and
thus, process for the appointment of new Lambardar was initiated.
Proclamation was made in the village for inviting applications from the
interested and eligible candidates. In pursuance to the same, applications
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059406
CWP-18471-2019 -2- 2024:PHHC:059406
were received from various candidates including the petitioner (Paramjit
Singh Bhatoya) and respondent No.4 (Jaspal Singh). Character verifications
of all candidates were got conducted from the concerned Police Station. On
comparison of their inter-se merits, the petitioner was found to be 42 years
of age and BA pass by qualification. Besides this, he was found to be
involved in a criminal case registered under Sections 323, 324, 148 and 149
IPC. On the other hand, respondent No.4 was found to be 40 years of age
and matriculate by qualification. Besides this, he was found to be owner of
4 Kanals of land and a member of village Panchayat from the last four
terms. Learned Collector on evaluation of the inter-se merits and demerits
of all the candidates, finding respondent No.4 to be more meritorious
candidate appointed him as Lambardar of the village vide order dated
08.11.2011 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner and co-
appellant Charanjit Singh filed their independent appeals under Section 13
of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the Divisional Commissioner,
Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, who heard both the appeals together. Learned
Divisional Commissioner after hearing all the sides found no infirmity in
the order passed by the learned Collector and thus, dismissed both the
appeals vide his order dated 26.08.2014 (Annexure P-2). Again aggrieved
by the same, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 16 of the
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the Financial Commissioner, who
re-heard both the sides and re-appreciated the record. However, learned
Financial Commissioner finding no infirmity in the orders passed by the
Collector and Commissioner, dismissed the revision petition vide his order
dated 22.10.2018 (Annexure P-3). Thus, all the three authorities have taken
a view in favour of respondent No.4. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059406
CWP-18471-2019 -3- 2024:PHHC:059406
petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended
that on the comparison of the inter-se merits of all the candidates in fray, the
petitioner was most meritorious and suitable candidate as he was more
qualified than respondents No.4, however, his candidature has been illegally
rejected on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case. He submits
that the petitioner was acquitted in the said case and thus, his prosecution in
this criminal case had no bearing on his candidature, whereas, learned
Collector miserably failed to appreciate the same and thus, illegally
appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village. He has submitted
that both the Appellate and Revisional authorities have equally failed in
appreciating that the petitioner was acquitted in criminal case and hence, his
candidature could not have been rejected on this ground. He submits that
the order passed by the Collector being perverse is unsustainable in the eyes
of law, which was illegally upheld by the Appellate and Revisional
authorities as well. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court in
Talwinder Singh vs. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab,
Chandigarh and others, 2012(67) RCR (Civil) 852. He further submits that
in these circumstances, the impugned orders being unsustainable in the eyes
of law, deserve to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has vehemently
opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has
submitted that respondent No.4 is younger than the petitioner. He has
submitted that though the petitioner is BA pass by qualification but
respondent is also 10th pass and there is no minimum qualification required
for the appointment of Lambardar as per the mandate of the Punjab Land
Revenue Act. He submits that respondent No.4 has an impeccable record as
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059406
CWP-18471-2019 -4- 2024:PHHC:059406
he was never involved in any criminal case, whereas, admittedly, the
petitioner faced criminal prosecution in case registered under Sections 323,
324, 148 and 149 IPC. He submits that the petitioner was acquitted in the
said criminal case on account of death of the complainant. He submits that
even if the petitioner is acquitted, but stigma still remains on his character
and thus, the petitioner is not eligible for the appointment of Lambardar and
learned Collector had rightly appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of
the vilalge, which order was further upheld by both the Appellate and
Revisional authorities. He also relies upon the judgments of this Court in
Harjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2023(4) RCR (Civil) 408; Ranjit
Singh son of Sh. Ombir Singh vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and
another, 2009(4) RCR (Civil) 350; Shaminder Singh vs. The Financial
Commissioner (Appeals) and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 2336937;
Gurmail Singh vs. Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, Law Finder
Doc Id # 2336990; Harish Chander vs. State of Punjab and others, Law
Finder Doc Id # 2341198 and Bhagwan Singh vs. Financial Commissioner,
Appeals-I, Punjab Chandigarh and others, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 862. He has
further submitted that as per law settled the view taken by the Collector
cannot be interfered with, unless the same suffers from patent illegality and
thus, there being no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the
Collector, which was rightly upheld by the Appellate and Revisional
authorities, the present petition being devoid of any merit, deserves to be
dismissed.
5. Heard.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record with their able assistance, it is apparent that on the death of earlier
SC Lambardar, process for the appointment of new Lambardar was initiated
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059406
CWP-18471-2019 -5- 2024:PHHC:059406
in the village and applications were invited from the interested and eligible
candidates. On receiving the application, inter-se merits of all the candidates
were considered and it was found that though there was no material
difference in the age of both the candidates, however, the petitioner was
more qualified than respondent No.4. On the verification of the record, it
was found that the petitioner had faced criminal prosecution in a case
registered under Sections 323, 324, 148 and 149 IPC. It is also apparent
from the record that the petitioner was acquitted in the said case on account
of death of the complainant, whereas, respondent No.4 has an impeccable
record as he never faced any criminal prosecution in any case. Thus, on the
evaluation of overall merits of all the candidates, the petitioner was found to
be more meritorious and suitable candidate by the Collector. The view taken
by the Collector was upheld by both the Appellate and Revisional
authorities as well. 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:-
"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."
7. There is no gainsaying that the Collector is the prime authority
for appointment of the Lambardar. It is the Collector, who not only
appreciates the antecedents of all the candidates in the fray, but also
personally interacts with them. Thus, the subjective satisfaction of the
Collector cannot be ignored in a cavalier manner.
9. There is no gainsaying that the petitioner has faced criminal
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059406
CWP-18471-2019 -6- 2024:PHHC:059406
prosecution. Although he was acquitted in the same but, he is not eligible
for the appointment of Lambardar, as has been held by this Court in Harjit
Singh's (supra), wherein, it has been held as under:-
"4. A perusal of the record would go on to show that the
District Collector was examining the merits of two more
candidates namely Naresh Thakur and Manohar Lal apart from
the present appellant and the private respondent. Manohar Lal
had withdrawn his application and the name of Sahib Singh
had been sent by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Pathankot
for conducting a hearing before recommending the name as
there were criminal cases pending against him. The Assistant
Collector Ist Grade, Pathankot gave the details of the pending
cases and recommended Harjit Singh-appellant thereafter. On
the date of hearing, Sahib Singh had not appeared and only
Harjit Singh had put in appearance. He was noticed to be 38
years old and matric pass and owner of 9 kanals and 9 marlas
of land. The Collector noticed that details of criminal cases had
been given by the Assistant Collector in his report and the
judgment of the Division Bench of Court in Ranjit Singh vs.
Financial Commissioner, Haryana and another 2009 (4)
RCR (Civil) 350 was kept in mind that where criminal cases
are registered and even on acquittal, the person is not eligible
for appointment as Lambardar."
10. 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.
11. All the three subordinate authorities have taken consistent view
and thus, order passed by the Collector is found to be suffering from no
perversity. This Court in Hakam Singh vs. Financial Commissioner
(Revenue), Punjab and others, 2016(4) RCR (Civil) 335 while dealing
with the same question has held as under:-
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059406
CWP-18471-2019 -7- 2024:PHHC:059406
"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."
12. 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.
13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and on the
anvil of law settled, this Court does not find any perversity in the impugned
orders and thus, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
29.04.2024 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable :Yes/No
7 of 7
