CWP No.11729 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.11729 of 2010 Date of decision : 31.3.2011 Hoshiar Chand ........Petitioner Vs. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh and others .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present:- Mr. G.S.Nagra, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl.AG, Punjab Mr.P.C.Rakra, Advocate, for respondent No.4 --- AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) : This petition has been filed by Hoshiar Chand son of Hari Ram in challenge to order dated 14.2.2005 Annexure P-5, passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh, whereby revision petition of respondent No.4-Kewal Singh has been accepted. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under - "I have heard the arguments of both the parties gone through the orders of the lower courts and examine the record and I find that the Deputy Commissioner has passed a perverse order by considering the petitioner to be the owner of 4 kanals and 10 marlas, whereas actually he is owner of 19 kanals of land. Therefore, the revision is accepted and the perverse orders of the District Collector and Commissioner are set aside." It appears that review application was filed by the petitioner, which has been dismissed vide order dated 17.3.2010 Annexure P-9. CWP No.11729 of 2010 -2- The petitioner was appointed as Lambardar for village Narangpur, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, by the Collector vide order dated 15.9.2003 Annexure P-1. Respondent No.4 carried an appeal, which was dismissed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar vide order dated 30.9.2004 Annexure P-4. The Collector has compared the merit of the petitioner with that of the respondent. The petitioner is 60 years of age, a matriculate, retired JBT Teacher and drawing pension @ ` 6,400/-per month. The petitioner owns 19 kanals of land. Respondent-Kewal Singh is 40 years of age, 7th Class pass, has been shown to be owner of 4 kanals and 10 marlas of land and is an ex- serviceman. Kewal Singh is also son of a deceased Lambardar. The Financial Commissioner has set aside the order, as is evident from the extracted portion above, on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner passed the perverse order. The land holding of the respondent has been shown to be 4 kanals 10 marlas, whereas actually the respondent owns 19 kanals 10 marlas land. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent contends that in terms of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram and others, 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 757' in the matter of appointment of Lambardar hereditary claim, property in the estate, service rendered to the state and personal influence etc. are required to be taken into account. The respondent owns 19 kanals of land. The Collector has wrongly considered the land holding to be 4 kanals and 10 marlas and therefore, impugned order deserves to be upheld. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of this Court in 'Balkar Singh v. Financial Commissioner and others, 2009 (2) LAR 374' to say that ex-serviceman is required to be given CWP No.11729 of 2010 -3- weightage. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. It is a fact admitted by learned counsel for the respondent that at the point in time when applications were invited for appointment of Lambardar, respondent No.4 owned only 4 kanals and 10 marlas of land. Naksha Lambardari indicated the said fact and therefore, the said fact was taken into account by the Collector while passing order Annexure P-1, as upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order Annexure P-4. It is subsequently in inheritance that the respondent came to own land which made him owner of 19 kanals of land. As against this there is no dispute in regard to the land holding by the petitioner to the extent of 19 kanals. So far as educational qualification is concerned, clearly the petitioner is a matriculate whereas respondent No.4 is only 7th Class pass. Essentially, the choice of the Collector is to be respected, in so much as Collector is a Revenue Officer in the District who is required to take work from the Lambardar, in context of provisions of Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. A Division Bench of this Court in 'Karnail Singh v. The State of Haryana and others, 1973 PLJ 676' has held the rule in regard to hereditary claim to be violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Be that as it may, the hereditary claim can be considered for giving preference, if other parameters are found to be equal. In the case in hand, the petitioner has an edge over the private respondent, in so much as he is more educated being matriculate and a retired teacher. At the point in time when applications were invited for appointment of Lambardar, the petitioner owned 19 kanals of land whereas respondent owned only 4 kanals and 10 CWP No.11729 of 2010 -4- marlas of land. The merit amongst the candidates is required to be seen at the point in time when applications are to be filled. Subsequent addition of land would not be a good ground to hold the order passed by the Collector to be perverse, as has been done by the Financial Commissioner in impugned order Annexure P-5. For the same reasons, the judgment rendered in Balkar Singh's case (supra) would not apply in the case in hand because the petitioner served as a Teacher, which also is a pious profession. In other aspects the petitioner has an edge over the private respondent. By any stretch of imagination or application of rules, the order passed by the Collector, as upheld by the Appellate Authority, the Commissioner, cannot be held to be perverse. In view of the above, Order Annexure P-5 is hereby quashed and the orders Annexures P-1 and P-3 are upheld. Petition is accordingly allowed. (AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE 31.3.2011 akm