IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.2854 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 16, 2011 BHAJAN SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT:Mr.Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This Civil Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 21.9.2010 (Annexure P-5). The orders have been passed by the appellate and revisional authorities in the context of appointment of Lambardar. The Collector had appointed the petitioner as Lambardar for Village Khaira Dona, Tehsil and District Kapurthala. On an appeal having been filed by respondent No.4, the appeal has been accepted and the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed vide orders, Annexures P-3 and P-5, respectively. Civil Writ Petition No.2854 of 2011 2 2 The appellate authority has interfered with the order of Collector on the premise that the petitioner is an illiterate, as no evidence in regard to his qualification has been placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during arguments in court, has not been able to disprove this fact. 3 The other ground on which the order passed by the Collector has been set aside is that the petitioner, being son of former-deceased Lambardar did not, for more than 30 years, inform the authorities about the death of his father. Rather, the petitioner undertook to collect the land revenue, etc., without any authority from the competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to controvert this fact also. 4 Other than the above, the petitioner is 70 years of age, whereas respondent No.4 is 41 years of age and respondent No.4 is also Member Panchayat. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments in Gurmeet Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab and others, 2007(2) Local Act Reporter 352 and Harbans Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab and others, 2007(2) Local Act Reporter 96, to argue that the appellate and revisional powers are limited. Choice of Collector is generally final Civil Writ Petition No.2854 of 2011 3 unless it is shown to be vitiated for lack of jurisdiction or is held to be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious. 6 I have considered the judgments on which reliance has been placed. 7 The Collector, being the appointing authority, was required to consider the relative merits, in the context of educational qualification, for discharge of duties by the incumbent Lambardar, as provided under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. The said factor having been ignored and the qualification of respondent No.4 not having been considered, the order passed by the Collector certainly is without good reasons. 8 On the other count, the age of the petitioner being 70 years, was required to be considered for discharge of functions by a Lambardar, in the context of duties, which fact has also not been considered in its correct perspective. The Collector was required to see as to under what circumstances, the petitioner did not intimate the authorities about the death of his father, who was the earlier Lambardar. The conduct of the petitioner is certainly despicable insomuch as he continued to collect land revenue and continued to perform the duties of Lambardar, without any legal authority to do the same. In such circumstances, a person like the petitioner, if allowed Civil Writ Petition No.2854 of 2011 4 to be appointed as Lambardar, would not make a good choice. 9 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.4 being a Member Panchayat, cannot perform the duties of Lambardar. This aspect has not been considered by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. 10 I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11 Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate his argument in the context of Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show the legal basis of such an argument. A Member Panchayat is required to operate within the village/estate and so is the Lambardar. Rule 15 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules does not provide for any disability to be appointed as Lambardar, in case such a person is a Member Panchayat. Rather, a perusal of Rule 15, as applicable to Punjab, indicates that it would be a qualification if the person has personal influence, character and ability. The Lambardar is required to have strength and importance of the community from which selection of the headman is to be made. The very fact that respondent No.4 is a Panch of Civil Writ Petition No.2854 of 2011 5 the village indicates better qualification, in terms of Rule 15 (d) and (e) and, therefore also, no perversity can be traced in the impugned orders. 12 I find that the grounds on which the appeal of respondent No.4 has been allowed are legally tenable, indicating perversity in the order passed by the Collector. 13 No ground for interference is made out. 14 The petition is dismissed in limine. February 16, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?