LPA No. 669 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 669 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision 28 .7.2009 Raghbir Singh. ..Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. G.S.Nagra,Advocate for the appellant 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against order dated 28.4.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 11887 of 2006 wherein the appellant was impleaded as respondent no. 4. The matter pertains to choice of a Lambardar (Headman) from the various applicants which is governed by Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1887 (for brevity 'the Rules'). The learned Single Judge is primarily influenced by the principle of law that choice ordinarily made by the Collector and then upheld by the Commissioner should not be interfered with by the Financial Commissioner. On the aforesaid primary consideration the order passed by the Financial Commissioner has been set aside. It is pertinent to notice that the order of the Financial Commissioner was based on extraneous considerations as is evident from the concluding para of the order which reads thus: “ After considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for LPA No. 669 of 2009 (O&M) 2 both the parties and going through the record of the lower court and orders of the lower court, I find that the order of the Collector and the Commissioner are perverse in giving undue weightage to the fact that the respondent belongs to the Jat community and he is maternal grand son of the previous Lambardar. The qualifications of the petitioner are in little better than that the respondent since he is higher secondary pass as compared to the respondent who is 6th class pass. The petitioner is 50 years of age, as compared to the respondent being 44 years of age and respondent owns 2 acres of land whereas the petitioner owns 12 acres of land. I see that the petitioner is marginally meritorious than the respondent, therefore, I accept the present revision and appoint Raghbir Singh as Lambardar of the village.” The learned Single Judge noticed the aforesaid reasoning of the Financial Commissioner and set aside the same by citing the principle that the choice exercised by the Collector is not ordinarily interfered with unless it is found perverse or the order sufferes from procedural or jurisdictional error. Mr. Gurnam Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge has committed grave error by accepting the reasoning of the Collector and the Commissioner adopted in their respective orders dated 30.4.2001 and 23.1.2003 (P.5 and P.7) in as much as the order had proceeded on consideration of caste and heredity. According to the learned counsel a candidate belonging to a jat community or he is maternal grand son of a deceased Lambardar would not constitute a legal LPA No. 669 of 2009 (O&M) 3 basis for choosing such a person for the office of Lambardar. Having heard the learned counsel and taking into account the various factors influencing the decision making in favour of respondent no.4- writ petitioner for appointment to the office of Lambardar we are of the view that various considerations are stipulated by Rule 15 of the Rules. It would be necessary to consider Rule 15 of the Rules which is relevant for deciding the issue raised and the same reads thus: “ Matters to be considered in first appointments.- In all first appointments of headman, regard shall be had among other matters to- (a) his hereditary claims; (b) the property in the estate possessed by the candidate to secure the recovery of land-revenue; ( 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 headmen is to be made; (f) services rendered by himself or by his family in the national movements to secure freedom of India. A perusal of the rule would show that a variety of factors are taken into account before deciding the issue for appointment of a person to the office of Lambardar namely (a) his hereditary claims (b) the property in the estate possessed by the candidate ( c) services rendered to the State by himself or by his family members (d) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness (e) the strength and importance of LPA No. 669 of 2009 (O&M) 4 the community from which selection of a headmen is to be made and (f) services rendered by himself or by his family in the national movement. The learned Single Judge has considered the various factors as is evident from the perusal of following two paras: “As per the well settled position of law, the choice exercised by the Collector normally is not to be interfered with, unless it is found perverse or the order otherwise suffers from procedural or jurisdictional error. There is no finding clearly given that how the order passed by the Collector could be called perverse. The fact that the petitioner belongs to a Jat community was taken note of and so also the fact that the petitioner is maternal grand son of a deceased Lambardar. These factors may not, in themselves, be valid for appointing a person as a Lambardar, but can not be termed as totally irrelevant. If that be so, the order passed by the Collector cannot be termed as perverse on these counts. The impugned order passed by the Collector would show that he was of the view that petitioner was a better choice from all angles. He was found young, financially sound and experienced and in addition, it was observed that he belongs to Jat community. Another factor, which was taken into account in favour of the petitioner, was that he was maternal grand son of the deceased Lambardar. This was just to observe that it would have given him adequate experience to perform the duties of Lambardar more effectively. This was not the factor which LPA No. 669 of 2009 (O&M) 5 appears to have led to the appointment of the petitioner as such. This was considered for the purpose that the petitioner by virtue of his relationship, gained experience for the post of Lambardar. The submission, that the hereditary claim on this ground could not have been weighed, in favour of the petitioner, thus, appears to be misconceived.” The principle that the choice made by the Collector ordinarily should not be interfered with is based on the rationale that the Collector is the best person in the hierarchy to form an opinion about the antecedents, efficiency and working of a person who is to be appointed as a Headmen. Moreover it has been categorically found that the order of the Collector could not have been called perverse. We are further of the view that there cannot be any possible objection in consideration of the petitioner on account of his heredity claim being maternal grand son of deceased Lambardar which again is based on the premise that when his maternal grand father was working as Lambardar he may have acquired knowledge and acceptability to act as such as and when an opportunity so arises. The writ petitioner- respondent no.4 was found to be a better choice from various angles as he was young, financially sound and experienced. What we are not impressed with is that the learned Single Judge could not have accepted one ground of appointment of writ petitioner- respondent no.4 namely that he belongs to Jat community. The provision in Rule 15(e) of the Rules requires recording of a finding with regard to the strength and importance of the community from which selection of a Lambardar was to be made. There is no analysis with regard to the vital LPA No. 669 of 2009 (O&M) 6 factor as to the strength and importance of the community which would vary from village to village and area to area. Therefore the aforesaid reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge has not commended itself to us and to that extent the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. This is a pyrrhic victory for the appellant- respondent no.4. Despite the fact that on one of the grounds the order of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable yet the other grounds supporting the choice of the writ petitioner- respondent no.4 is meritorious. The appeal is otherwise without any merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. For the reasons stated above, the order of the learned Single Judge is upheld except the reasoning that the writ petitioner- respondent no.4 belongs to a particular community. Dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) 28.7.2009 Judge okg