IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7370 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 08, 2011 Tarsem Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.5. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Tarsem Singh has approached this Court in civil writ jurisdiction in challenge to Order dated 20.1.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, whereby revision of respondent No.5 has been accepted. Respondent No.5 Gurdev Singh has been ordered to be appointed as Lambardar. 2. Vide Order dated 7.1.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by the District Collector, Rupnagar, respondent No.5 had been appointed CWP No.7370 of 2009 [2] as Lambardar, however, the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, vide Order dated 13.3.2008 (Annexure P-4), accepted the appeal of the petitioner thereby setting aside the order passed by the Collector. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is younger in age being 48 years old; matric pass; owns 8.5 acres of land, and therefore has better merit as compared to the private respondent who is 68 years of age; 8th class pass; and owns only 7 kanal 7 marlas of land. 4. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel. 5. The Collector and Financial Commissioner, while considering the issue, have given weightage to the service rendered by family of the private respondent to the Nation. The said respondent served Indian Army for 15 years including during 1961, 1965 and 1971 operation. The respondent has been awarded Shaurya Chakra for bravery. Father of respondent No.5 also served the Nation and participated in independence war and second world war. Brother of the respondent served the Nation and retired as Captain from the Indian Army. Paternal uncle of the said respondent also served Indian National Army (INA) and was in military service after independence. 6. The Collector made a choice while giving preference to the respondent on account of service rendered to the Nation by the said respondent and his family members. 7. Collector is the revenue officer who has to extract work from a Lambardar in context of his duties as given out in Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. Unless the consideration is perverse CWP No.7370 of 2009 [3] in nature, no interference is call for. In such circumstances, I trace no illegality in the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. 8. So far as the age of respondent No.5 is concerned, respondent No.5 is present in Court in person and in my perception, he appears to be in good health to serve as a Lambardar. 9. No ground for interference in extraordinary civil writ jurisdiction is made out. 10. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) March 08, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?