IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14283 of 2009 Date of decision: 14.10.2009 Phulla Singh ….. Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab and Others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner in which the following substantive prayer has been made :- “ a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing an impugned order dated 24.3.2009 passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure P8), vide which respondent No.1 while reversing the order dated 10.4.2008 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure P6), vide which the petitioner was appointed as Lambardar of village Alamwala, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar and further for restoration of order dated 10.4.2008 (Annexure P6) passed by respondent No.2.” CWP No.14283 of 2009 [2] The Office of Lambardar of village Alamwala, Tehsil Malout fell vacant on the death of the incumbent Chuhar Singh who died on 12.10.2001. In terms of office letter dated 24.7.2003, sanction was given by the District Collector, Muktsar (respondent No.3) for appointment of a new Lambardar. Applications were invited for the said post and nine candidates filed their applications for consideration for appointment as Lambardar. Documents in support of their respective cases were submitted by the candidates. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Malout (respondent No.5) considered the case of the petitioner and that of Mahima Singh (respondent No.6). In terms of recommendations dated 3.10.2004, Mahima Singh (respondent No.6), it was observed by the Tehsildar had 30 kanals of land. The petitioner Phula Singh, it was observed, had 18 kanals 17 marlas of land. It was also observed that Phula Singh (petitioner) had a good reputation in the village and was better qualified then Mahima Singh (respondent No.6). Accordingly, the Tehsildar, Malout (respondent No.5) on 3.10.2004 recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment as Lambardar. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate- cum-Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Malout vide order dated 29.11.2004 after considering the comparative merit of the petitioner and respondent No.6, also recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lambardar. The District Collector, Muktsar, however, vide order dated 8.2.2005 (Annexure P1) came to the conclusion that Mahima Singh (respondent No.6) was a better candidate and accordingly appointed him as Lambardar of village Alamwala due to the death of his father Chuhar Singh. It is alleged by the petitioner that the District Collector, Muktsar (respondent No.3) did not give any opportunity to the petitioner to produce documents in CWP No.14283 of 2009 [3] support of his case and he decided the case in a hasty manner and in one hearing. The petitioner aggrieved against the said order dated 8.2.2005 (Annexure P1) filed an appeal (Annexure P2) before the Commissioner Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. The Commissioner Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur vide order dated 13.6.2006 (Annexure P3) accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Collector dated 8.2.2005 (Annexure P1). The case was remanded to the District Collector, Muktsar with the direction that it be decided afresh after affording proper opportunities to both the parties. Both the parties were given liberty to produce documents in support of their claim. The District Collector, Muktsar thereafter vide order dated 1.3.2007 (Annexure P4) found Mahima Singh (respondent No.6) to be a better candidate then Phula Singh (petitioner). Accordingly, Mahima Singh (respondent No.6) was appointed as Lambardar of village Alamwala. The petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 1.3.2007 (Annexure P4) of the District Collector, Muktsar filed an appeal (Annexure P5) before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. The learned Commissioner vide order dated 10.4.2008 (Annexure P6) accepted the appeal and set aside the order dated 1.3.2007 (Annexure P4) passed by the District Collector, Muktsar and the petitioner (Phula Singh) was appointed as Lambardar of village Alamwala. Mahima Singh (respondent No.6) aggrieved against the said order dated 10.4.2008 (Annexure P6) passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur preferred an appeal (Annexure P7) before the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab (respondent No.1) who vide order dated 24.3.2009 (Annexure P8) set aside the order dated 10.4.2008 (Annexure P6) passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur CWP No.14283 of 2009 [4] and restored the order dated 1.3.2007 (Annexure P4) passed by the District Collector, Muktsar. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is more meritorious than Mahima Singh (respondent No.6) and the comparative merit of both the candidates would show that the petitioner had rightly been appointed as Lambardar by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur vide order dated 10.4.2008 (Annexure P6). However, the said order has wrongly been set aside by the impugned order dated 24.3.2009 (Annexure P8) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab. It is submitted that the District Collector, Muktsar and the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab have given undue weightage to the fact that Mahima Singh (respondent No.6) is the son of deceased Lambardar Chuhar Singh. In fact no weightage was liable to be given in respect of a hereditary claim and this Court has held that a person cannot be appointed as Lambardar on the basis of his lineage. It is also submitted that a FIR was registered against Mahima Singh (respondent No.6) and the learned Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur in his order dated 10.4.2008 (Annexure P6) has specifically observed that a FIR was registered against Mahima Singh (respondent No.6). Therefore, he was a man of not good character and there was a stigma against his character and such type of person, it was observed, cannot be appointed as Lambardar. Besides, it was observed that it was not understood as to why the District Collector had not discussed a burning issue while passing the impugned order though this plea was taken by the appellant before the then Commissioner and the case was remanded to the District Collector for fresh decision. This according to the CWP No.14283 of 2009 [5] learned counsel is itself a perversity in the impugned order inasmuch as the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab has not delved into this aspect. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. It may be noticed that in the matters regarding appointment of Lambardar, it is primarily an administrative act and prerogative of the District Collector. The selection of Lambardar made by the District Collector is not to be lightly undone unless and until it is shown that there is some gross irregularity, perversity or patent error in the order regarding appointment of a Lambardar. In the present case, the earlier order dated 8.2.2005 (Annexure P1) passed by the District Collector, Muktsar appointing Mahima Singh (respondent No.6) as Lambardar was set aside by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur vide order dated 13.6.2006 (Annexure P3). In the reconsideration process, the District Collector considered the matter and found Mahima Singh (respondent No.6) to be more suitable. It was observed that Mahima Singh (respondent No.6) was a better candidate than the petitioner because Mahima Singh (respondent No.6) was 35 years old whereas Phulla Singh (petitioner) was 60 years of age. (This line regarding age has been left out in the English translation of the order and has been taken from the copy of the order in vernacular). Mahima Singh (respondent No.6) had studied upto 8th standard whereas Phula Singh (petitioner) had studied upto 7th standard. It was observed that it was correct that Phula Singh (petitioner) had more land but there was no limit in respect to land. Mahima Singh (respondent No.6), it was observed, being the son of the deceased Lambardar Chuhar Singh had a right to be Lambardar. Besides, Mahima Singh (respondent No.6) had 4 acres of land in the village which was sufficient for him. Accordingly, Mahima Singh CWP No.14283 of 2009 [6] (respondent No.6) was appointed as Lambardar. The said order of the District Collector was set aside by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur vide order dated 10.4.2008 (Annexure P6). It was observed that FIR No.38 dated 20.5.1996 had been registered against Mahima Singh (respondent No.6) and therefore he was a man of bad character. Besides, in this way there was a stigma against his character and such type of person cannot be appointed as Lambardar. The learned Financial commissioner (Revenue), Punjab vide her order dated 24.3.2009 (Annexure P8) found that Mahima Singh (respondent No.6) had an edge over the petitioner on merit. He was younger in age and more educated; besides, he was the son of deceased Lambardar. As such he, it was observed, had a hereditary claim. Therefore, it was held that Mahima Singh (respondent No.6) had been rightly appointed as Lambardar. As regards the FIR referred to in the order dated 10.4.2008 (Annexure P6) of the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, it was observed that the said FIR had been cancelled after compromise had been effected between the parties. Therefore, no cognizance of the FIR was to be taken in a Lambardari case. According to the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab; the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur had erred in his judgment while setting aside the order of the Collector. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted. The primary contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that undue weightage has been given to the fact that Mahima Singh (respondent No.6) is the son of deceased Lambardar Chuhar Singh and that a FIR was registered against him. It may be noticed that Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1887 (“Rules” – for short) provides for matters to be considered in first CWP No.14283 of 2009 [7] appointment as Lambardar. It is inter alia provided that in all first appointments of headman, regard shall be had among other matters to :- (a) his hereditary claims; (b) extent of property in the estate possessed by the candidate; (c) services rendered to the State by himself or by his family; (d) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness; (e) the strength and importance of the community from which selection of a headman is to be made; (f) services rendered by himself or by his family in the national movements to secure freedom of India; Therefore, the hereditary claim in terms of Rule 15 is one of the factors which is to be considered and for which weightage is to be given. Besides, other factors are to be considered. Therefore, it cannot be said that no weightage at all is to be given to a hereditary claim for consideration for appointment as Lambardar as is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In fact weightage of a hereditary claim is to be given though it is not to be the sole consideration. As such, amongst other aspects, weightage for a hereditary claim in the consideration and decision making process for appointment as Lambardar is to be given. The same having been given would not warrant interference of this Court in exercise of CWP No.14283 of 2009 [8] its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India as the same is in consonance with the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules. As regards the registration of FIR and the observations of the learned Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur that because FIR is registered, the person is of bad character, in my view, are clearly not sustainable. A FIR that is registered against a person is only an information to the Police and that by itself does not mean that a person is of a bad character. The information given to the Police only sets the criminal law into motion to enable the police to investigate the matter in accordance with law. Therefore, to say merely because a FIR is registered the person is of a bad character, would be improper. A person as is well-known is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty. Besides, the nature of allegations and other factors as to seriousness of the offence said to be committed and whether it is one of moral turpitude are also liable to be considered and gone into in the decision making process. In the present case, the FIR had been cancelled as the matter had been compromised between the parties. There is no material before this Court so as to ascertain as to what are the nature of the allegations and as to what were the contents of the FIR which would warrant this Court to hold that the registration of the FIR would be a factor for disentitling respondent No.6 to be considered for appointment as Lambardar. In any case, the learned Financial Commissioner having observed that the FIR had been cancelled after the compromise had been effected between the parties, the said factor has rightly not been taken into account for disentitling Mahima Singh (respondent No.6) to be considered for appointment as Lambardar. CWP No.14283 of 2009 [9] This Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction is not to sit in appeal over the findings reached at by the revenue authorities in the matter of appointment of Lambardar. In the process of judicial review, this Court is not to substitute its decision reached at by the revenue authorities. The revenue authorities having considered the matter and having found Mahima Singh (respondent No.6) to be more suitable, would not warrant any interference by re-appreciating the inter se merit of the candidates and substituting the decision reached at after consideration by the revenue authorities. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE October 14, 2009 amit