Gurwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 10051 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 9 May, 2024

Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj

Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066873



CWP-10844-2018 (O&M)                          1


240
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH


                                                  CWP-10844-2018 (O&M)
                                                  Date of decision : 09.05.2024


Gurwinder Singh                                                 .....Petitioner

                                  versus


State of Punjab and others                                      ..... Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
        ***

Present :-   Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.

             Mr. Dhiraj Jindal, Advocate
             for respondent No.4.

         ***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the impugned

order dated 07.09.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 whereby

learned District Collector has illegally and arbitrarily appointed respondent

No.4 as Lambardar of Village Kamalpur, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur and

also for quashing the impugned order dated 08.10.2013 (Annexure P-2)

passed by respondent No.2 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner

has illegally been dismissed and the impugned order dated 24.04.2017

passed by respondent No.1-Financial Commissioner passed in ROR No.212

of 2014 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been

dismissed illegally, arbitrarily and by passing a totally manifest, wrong and

perverse order.

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066873

As emanated from the facts of the case, the post of Lambardar

had fallen vacant in the Village on the death of earlier Lambardar namely,

Joginder Singh on 02.02.2011. Thus, on conducting the proclamation, the

applications were invited from the interested eligible candidates. Originally

04 persons from the village applied for the post of Lambardar however, one

of the candidate namely, Charanjit Singh son of Mohinder Singh who did not

have any land in the Village and thus, was discarded. Another applicant-Moti

Ram, remained absent and thus, he was proceeded ex parte. Thus, only

remaining two candidates i.e. Petitioner-Gurwinder Singh and respondent

No.4-Jaswinder Singh (Jagwinder Singh) remained in the fray. On

appreciation of their applications, their inter se merits were found as follows:-

   1) Name                    Jagwinder Singh           Gurwinder Singh

   2) Father's Name           Sadhu Singh               Jagwinder Singh

3) Village/Tehsil/District Kamalpur/Sunam/Sangrur Kamalpur/Sunam/Sangrur

4) Age 52 years 36 years

5) Educational B.A. 9th qualification

6) Relationship with None Son previous Nambardar

7) Experience None Acting Nambardar

8) Land 5 acres 14 acres

9) Character Punished Punished

10) Adverse Remarks None None

The Subordinate Authorities recommended the name of

respondent No.4-Jagwinder Singh. Learned Collector on the evaluation of

their inter se merits found respondent No.4 to be more suitable and thus,

appointed him as Lambardar of the Village vide his order dated 07.09.2011.

Being aggrieved, petitioner assailed the same by way of filing the appeal

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066873

under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before learned

Divisional Commissioner, Patiala. However, learned Divisional

Commissioner heard both the sides and finding no infirmity in the order

passed by the Collector, dismissed the same vide his order dated 08.10.2013.

Still aggrieved, petitioner assailed the same by way of filing the revision

petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act before the

Financial Commissioner. However, learned Financial Commissioner heard

both the sides and appreciated the record and thus, finding no perversity in

the orders passed by the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner,

dismissed the same vide his order dated 24.04.2017. Hence, being aggrieved

by the impugned orders passed by the learned Collector, Divisional

Commissioner and the learned Financial Commissioner, petitioner is before

this Court by way of filing the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner

was 36 years of age and 9th class pass. Besides this he owned 14 acres of

land. He has submitted that petitioner being son of the deceased Lambardar,

had worked as Sarbara Lambardar as well and thus, he had experience of

discharging the duties of Lambardar. It is also submitted that petitioner is

younger in age and he had the hereditary claim as well, being son of the

deceased Lambardar. He is permanent resident of the Village. He has

submitted that respondent No.4 was elder in age and matured person. He

further submits that respondent No.4 was 16 years old in age than the

petitioner and as per the law settled, candidate younger in age should have

been preferred. As per the law settled, the candidate younger in age should

be preferred but the learned Collector ignoring the same had appointed

respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the Village which is against the law

settled. He has submitted that it was wrongly observed that petitioner is not a

resident of the Village. He has submitted that learned Commissioner had also

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066873

failed to appreciate the perversity in the order passed by the Collector and

thus, the same is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the

revision filed by the petitioner before the learned Financial Commissioner

was also illegally dismissed and thus, all the three impugned orders being

perverse, deserve to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has

vehemently opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He

has submitted that respondent No.4 was a matured person and being

Graduate, was well qualified. He submits that respondent No.4 was the Head

of Gurduwara Committee and remained Head of Cooperative Society

Agriculture twice. He has submitted that it has been found on verification

that the petitioner did not live in the Village as he was residing in Patiala and

learned Financial Commissioner has also specifically observed the said fact

in his order dated 24.04.2017. He submits that the hereditary claim as

contended by counsel for the petitioner is already held unconstitutional. He

submits that respondent No.4 was appointed by the Collector finding him

more meritorious and suitable and the same was upheld by the Appellate and

Revisional Authorities as well. He submits that as per law settled the

Collector is the prime authority and choice of the Collector should not be

interfered until and unless it suffers from perversity. He has submitted that

there being no infirmity in the orders passed by the Authorities below, the

petition being devoid of any merits deserves to be dismissed.

Heard. This Court has heard counsel for the parties and perused

the record with their able assistance. As evident from perusal of the record,

petitioner and respondent No.4 were the two candidates in the fray

Respondent No.4 was elder in age than the petitioner and was much more

qualified than the petitioner who was only 9th pass. His candidature was

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066873

recommended by all the Subordinate Authorities. Besides this, the petitioner

was found to be residing in Patiala and thus, not being residing in the Village

could not be available for discharging his duties as Lambardar. Hence, in the

overall facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No.4 was found to be

more suitable for the post of Lambardar. This order was upheld by both the

Commissioner and learned Financial Commissioner.

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.

However, as per the judgment titled as Parkash Chand Vs.

State of Haryana passed in CWP No.17185 of 2011 decided on

30.01.2013, hereditary claim has been held to be unconstitutional. This

Court in Parkash Chand's case (supra) held as under:

"So far as the hereditary claim is concerned, the issue is no more res integra. It was held by a Division bench of this Court in Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1974 PLR 67 that Rule 17(ii) being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the provision providing for the hereditary claim was ultra vires and unconstitutional."

Thus, the argument regarding hereditary claim raised by

counsel for the petitioner is without any force and is rejected. This Court

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:066873

finds that all the authorities have taken a concurrent view in the appointment

of respondent No.4. Thus, weighing the facts and circumstances of the case,

on the anvil of the law settled, this Court does not find any infirmity or

perversity in the impugned orders and thus, the petition being devoid of any

merits is hereby dismissed.

                                                ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
09.05.2024                                             JUDGE
m. sharma
             Whether speaking/reasoned           :    Yes/No
             Whether reportable                  :    Yes/No




                                   6 of 6