Civil Writ Petition No. 5204 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 5204 of 2007 Date of Order: 11.02.2010 Jagdish Chand ....Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Ms. Bhupinder Kaur,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Jindal, Addl. A.G.,Haryana for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr.Sunil Panwar, Advocate for respondents No.3 RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the orders dated 21.07.2005 and 07.11.2006, passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, appointing Satish Kumar, respondent no.4 as the Lambardar. On account of the demise of the incumbent Lambardar of Patti Gulab and Patti Roop Ram, revenue authorities initiated the process for appointment of a new Lambardar. The petitioner, respondent no.4 and others applied for the post of Lambardar. The Collector vide his order dated 14.08.2001, appointed respondent no.4 as the Lambardar. The petitioner filed an appeal. The Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, accepted the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Collector and remitted the matter for adjudication by holding that the Collector should consider allegations of encroachment of panchayat land, the registration of a case for Civil Writ Petition No. 5204 of 2007 -2- theft of electricity and an allegation that Satish Kumar, respondent no.4 had fired gun shots during the Ramlila. The Collector re- considered the matter and thereafter appointed the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, respondent no.4 filed an appeal. The Commissioner, accepted the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Collector and directed the appointment of respondent no.4 as the Lambardar. The Commissioner, after appraisal of the record held that there is no evidence on record to suggest that respondent no.4 fired shots during the Ramlila. The allegation of theft of electricity and registration of an FIR relate to respondent no.4's father who has even otherwise been acquitted. The allegation of unauthorised occupation of panchayat land also relates to the respondent no.4's father and is even otherwise unsubstantiated. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision, which was dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the choice of the Collector is final and can only be reversed if it is arbirary, perverse or contrary to the law, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to re-appraise facts, weigh merits and thereafter impose their perception of the better candidate. It is submitted that allegations of theft of electricity, unauthorised occupation of panchayat land, are sufficient to reject the candidature of respondent no.4. It is further argued that if respondent no.4 is appointed as the Lambardar his family would have a monopoly of all public appointments, in the village, as his father is the Sarpanch and his Mausa is the Lambardar of patti Datta Ram. It is further argued that as the respondent no.4 does not have any land in patti Gulab and Patti Roop Ram his candidature should have been rejected Civil Writ Petition No. 5204 of 2007 -3- summarily. Counsel for respondent no.4, on the other hand, submits that the allegations of theft of electricity and unauthorised occupation of panchayat land relate to his father and, therefore, cannot be held against respondent no.4. Even otherwise, his father has been acquitted and the allegation of unauthorised occupation remains unsubstantiated. It is, however, clarified that the respondent no.4's father, was in occupation of land described as Jumla Mushtarka Malkan and when the land vested in the Gram Panchayat in the year 1992, his father relinquished possession. As regards the allegations that respondent no.4 does not possess any land in the patti, it is pointed out that respondent no.4 is the owner of 4 kanals in Patti Roop Ram, a fact admitted in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. The argument that he respondent no.4 does not own any land is, therefore, factually incorrect. With respect to argument that respondent No. 4's relatives occupy all important posts in the village, it is submitted that the petitioner's father is no longer the Sarpanch and his Mausa who was the lambardar has since passed away. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to hold that they require interference. It is true that the choice of the Collector in appointing the Lambardar is final. However, where the Collector's choice is arbitrary, perverse or contrary to law, the appellate and the revisional authority would be justified in setting aside such orders. The impugned orders do not suffer from any of these disabilities. A perusal of the order passed by the Collector discloses that the candidature of respondent no.4 was rejected on allegations Civil Writ Petition No. 5204 of 2007 -4- of theft of electricity, unauthorised occupation of panchayat land and that he fired gun shots during a Ramlila. As recorded by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, these allegations are incorrect. The allegation of theft of electricity was levelled against the father of respondent no.4, who was acquitted on 04.03.2002. The allegation of unauthorised occupation was also levelled against, his father who relinquished possession in the year, 1992. The allegation of firing gun shots remains unsubstantiated. The assertion that respondent no.4 does not own any land in the patti is belied by the admission in paragraph 4 of the writ petition where it is categorically pleaded that respondent no.4 purchased 4 kanals of land in Patti Gulab, so as to make him eligible for the post of lambardar. It is apparent that the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner rightly interferred with the choice of the Collector as his order was passed by ignoring and misreading material evidence. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. February, 11, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE