IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 2338 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 22.12.2011 Mohinder Singh .... APPELLANT Versus Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Ms. Gurnam Kaur Turka, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 5.8.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 14092 of 2011) filed by the appellant for setting aside the orders dated 10.12.2008 and 3.5.2011 (Annexures P-6 and P-8), passed by the Collector, Patiala; and the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala (respondents No.2 and 1), respectively, appointing Sukhdev Singh (respondent No.3 herein) as Lambardar of the village, has been dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the orders, passed by the authorities below. LPA No. 2338 of 2011 -2- Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the orders passed by the revenue authorities appointing respondent No.3 as Lambardar of the village, only on the ground that respondent No.3 is not ordinarily residing in village Pandtan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, and further on the ground that the appellant is more meritorious, being younger in age, owning more land and Ex-Serviceman. A perusal of the order passed by the Collector reveals that respondent No.3 was found more meritorious having better educational qualification (Respondent No.3 is B.A whereas appellant is under Middle), employed in Co-operation Department, Patiala and son of the deceased Lambardar as well as being conversant with the work of Lambardari. The Commissioner has affirmed the order of the Collector, while observing as under : “I feel that the Collector has rightly appointed the respondent as Lambardar as he is far mature person of 51 years old and is more educated being B.A pass and is having sufficient land for the security of `Zere Bharat'. Secondly, the respondent is the son of deceased Lambardar and as such he has hereditary claim and the same has also to be given due weightage as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India cited as 2009 (1) Apex Court Judgments-29 in which it has been settled that the hereditary claim is one of the factors which is required to be taken into consideration for the appointment of Lambardar. As per Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules 1908 also, the hereditary claim has to be given due weightage while appointing a person as Lambardar. Furthermore, the appellant LPA No. 2338 of 2011 -3- has again failed to explain any demerits of the appointed candidate which could be considered against him. The appellant is only alleging that the respondent is occupying a Government job but there is no bar to appoint a Government employee as Lambardar. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the orders dated 10.12.2008 passed by District Collector, Patiala.” Before the learned Single Judge, it was argued that respondent No.3 is not ordinarily residing in the village. This contention did not find favour with the learned Single Judge and the writ petition has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that respondent No.3 is having house at Patiala and his name is also entered in the voter list of Ward No. 49 of Municipal Corporation, Patiala, therefore, it should be assumed that he is ordinarily residing in Patiala, and not in the village. During the course of arguments, it has not been disputed that village Pandtan is situated at a distance of about 12-15 Kilometers from Patiala. Merely because a person is also owning a house in the city, it cannot be assumed that he is not ordinarily residing in the village. From the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner, it appears that no such question was raised before them. Further, counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is more meritorious being younger in age and owning more land. He also argued that respondent No.3 cannot be appointed as Lambardar on the basis of hereditary claim. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in this appeal. LPA No. 2338 of 2011 -4- Both the authorities, after considering the comparative merits of both the candidates, came to the conclusion that respondent No.3 is more meritorious. Regarding the hereditary claim, it has been observed that the hereditary claim is one of the factor, which requires to be taken into consideration for appointment of Lambardar, but the same cannot be the sole criteria. On this principle, the Collector and the Commissioner considered the comparative merits of both the candidates and then appointed respondent No.3 as Lambardar of the village. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order, passed by the learned Single Judge, upholding the orders of the authorities below. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 22, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE