Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagga Singh vs Financial Commissioner Punjab And Ors on 3 July, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082234
241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-437-2017 (O&M)
Date of decision : 03.07.2024
JAGGA SINGH
...Petitioner
Versus
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB
AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present : Mr. Naresh Chander, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Jaskirat Singh Bhogal, Advocate
for Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner (Jagga Singh) has filed the instant writ petition
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the
nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 22.06.2011 (Annexure
P-1)
1) passed by the learned Collector,
Collector, District Rupnagar, whereby
respondent No.4-Bhag
No.4 Bhag Singh was appointed as the Lambardar of Village
Kalwa, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082234
A further prayer has been made for setting aside the order
dated 08.08.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Commissioner,
Rupnagar Division, Rupnagar and also the order dated 05.05.2016
(Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab;
whereby the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner against the order
dated 22.06.2011 (Annexure P-1) have been dismissed respectively.
2. Briefly, the previous Lambardar of Village Kalwa, namely,
Mohinder Singh son of Sh. Hem Raj, expired on 07.01.2010, whereupon,
the proceedings were initiated for filling up the vacant post of Lambardar of
Village Kalwa. In response to the proclamation issued by the authorities for
filling up the vacant post, 27 applications were received, including the one
submitted by the petitioner and the one submitted by respondent No.4.
Upon receipt of the applications for the post of Lambardar, the antecedents
of the candidates were got verified, which were found in order, except two
candidates namely, Nirmal Kumar and Nirmal Singh.
2.1 Before the Naib Tehsildar, 19 candidates appeared and upon
considering their candidature, the Naib Tehsildar, recommended the name
of one Sh. Iqbal Singh for appointment to the post of Lambardar vide its
report dated 14.02.2011 and the matter was forwarded to the Tehsildar,
Anandpur Sahib.
2.2 Before the Tehsildar, Anandpur Sahib, 11 candidates appeared
and upon considering their candidature, the Tehsildar, also recommended
the name of said Sh. Iqbal Singh, for the afore-said post of Lambardar and
the matter was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Anandpur
Sahib.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082234
2.3 Before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib, the
afore-said 11 candidates (including the petitioner and respondent No.4)
appeared and upon considering their candidature, he recommended the
name of respondent No.4-Bhag Singh, for being appointed to the post of
Lambardar and the parties were required to appear before the Collector,
Rupnagar.
3. Learned Collector, Rupnagar, found respondent No.4 more
meritorious as compared to the other candidates. Learned Collector found
the petitioner to be less educated and accordingly, going by the
recommendation made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib,
appointed respondent No.4 as the Lambardar of Village Kalwa vide its
order dated 22.06.2011 (Annexure P-1).
4. The petitioner herein challenged the afore-said order dated
22.06.2011 (Annexure P-1) before the learned Commissioner, Rupnagar
Division by way of an appeal, which came to be registered as Revenue
Appeal No.29/2011. It is noticed that apart from the petitioner, other
candidates also challenged the afore-said order dated 22.06.2011 (Annexure
P-1) by filing their respective appeals, which were total 08 in numbers
(including the appeal filed by the petitioner). All the afore-said eight
appeals came to be dismissed by learned Commissioner, Rupnagar vide
common order dated 08.08.2014 (Annexure P-3).
5. Still aggrieved, the petitioner filed the Revision petition before
the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, which came to be registered
as ROR No.170 of 2015. Apart from the afore-said Revision petition filed
by the petitioner, another revision petition was filed by one Gurdev Kaur.
Both the afore-said revision petitions were also dismissed by the learned
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082234
Financial Commissioner, Punjab vide its order dated 05.05.2016
(Annexure P-5).
6. In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed
the present writ petition before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Revenue
authorities below have erred in law and fact in appointing the respondent
No.4 as Lambardar of Village Kalwa. It is submitted that the authorities
below have not considered the relative merits and de-merits of the
candidates and have wrongly passed the impugned order. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a mature man of
about 58 years of age and has studied upto 6th standard. It is further
submitted that the petitioner has more land holdings than respondent No.4
and that he is the brother of the deceased Lambardar. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has further submitted that the authorities below have wrongly
appointed respondent No.4 as the Lambardar by accepting the
recommendation made by the lower Revenue Officer, despite the fact that
the said recommendation was not binding upon the Collector as well as the
Appellate and Revisional authorities. It is also submitted that respondent
No.4 is in an un-authorized possession of the panchayat land, therefore, he
could not be appointed as Lambardar. Accordingly, the prayer has been
made that the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner be appointed
as Lambardar of Village Kalwa.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel representing respondent No.4
has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting
that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. It is
submitted that the lower Revenue Officer namely, Sub Divisional
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082234
Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib, had recommended the name of the petitioner
for appointment to the post of Lambardar and the learned Collector, upon
appreciating the merits and de-merits of the respective candidates,
appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar. It is further submitted that the
order passed by the Collector has been upheld by the learned Commissioner
as well as the learned Financial Commissioner, therefore, there is no scope
for any interference in the impugned orders. Leaned counsel for the
respondent No.4 further submitted that it is well settled that choice of the
Collector, in the matter of appointment of Lambardar is not to be lightly
interfered with, even if, two views are possible. As regards the allegation of
the petitioner that respondent No.4 is in an un-authorized possession of
Panchayat land, it is submitted that no such plea was taken before the
learned Collector. The said plea was taken only before the learned Financial
Commissioner, however, no documentary evidence in that regard was
produced. It is submitted that rather it is the petitioner, who has encroached
upon the panchayat land. It is next submitted that respondent No.4 is more
meritorious than the petitioner and has been rightly appointed as
Lambardar. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the writ petition has been
made.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
have gone through the paper book with their able assistance.
10. In the instant case, it is borne out that the petitioner is about 58
years of age, owns 56 kanal 14 marlas land in Village Kalwa; has studied
upto 6th standard. On the other hand, respondent No.4 is about 51 years of
age, owns 07 kanal 17 marlas in Village Kalwa and runs a petrol pump. He
is matriculate and an ex-member of Panchayat and also remained President
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082234
of six Youth Clubs. Further, the brother of respondent No.4 has sacrificed
his life in the kargil war and he had married his widowed sister-in-law.
10.1 From the above, it is apparent that respondent No.4 has an
edge over the petitioner inasmuch as that respondent No.4 is younger in
age, has sufficient land holding, he is more educated than the petitioner and
appears to be economically sound. Moreover, the lower Revenue officer
(SDM, Anandpur Sahib) had recommended his candidature for appointment
to the post of Lambardar. Although, the recommendation made by the
lower Revenue Officer may not be binding on the learned Collector, yet the
same would have some persuasive value and due consideration is to be
accorded to such recommendations as such officers are in a position to
assess the suitability of a candidate. That apart, being a Sarpanch or
Member Panchayat reflects upon the popularity of a particular candidate of
the Village and is considered as a merit, as observed by this Court in
Lakhwinder Singh vs State of Haryana, 2016(2) RCR (Civil) 4. It is well
settled that in the matter of appointment of Lambardar, the choice of the
Collector, is not to be lightly interfered with, even if, two views are
possible. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment rendered by
a Division Bench of this Court in Satinder Pal Singh vs Financial
Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab 2014(78) RCR(Civil) 871 and in case of
Ranbir Singh vs State of Haryana and others, 2015(36) RCR(Civil)716.
10.2 As regards the contention of the petitioner that respondent
No.4 is in un-authorized possession of Panchayat land, the learned counsel
was asked to show any material in the form of notice or eviction petition
filed against respondent No.4, to substantiate the afore-said plea, however,
he had failed to do so.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082234
11. Keeping in view the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances,
I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders, resultantly,
the instant petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The order
passed by the Collector, appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar of
Village Kalwa, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar, and
as affirmed by the learned Commissioner as well as the learned Financial
Commissioner, are upheld.
12. All pending application/s, if any, shall also stand closed.
July 03, 2024 (HARSH BUNGER)
gurpreet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
