IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.1158 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 21, 2011 Kuljit Singh …APPELLANT VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Anumal Husbandry, Punjab,Chandigarh and others …RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- PRESENT: Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. J.S. Bhinder, Advocate, for respondent No.3. … SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.07.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.953 of 2008) filed by the appellant against the orders dated 29.12.2004 and 21.11.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Jalandhar Division), Jalandhar and Financial Commissioner (Punjab), Chandigarh, respectively, has been dismissed. In the present case, the appellant was appointed as a Lambardar of village Mianwal Arayan by the Collector. On the appeal filed by respondent No.3, the said order was set aside by the Commissioner vide order dated 29.12.2004 on the ground that the lambardari proceedings were initiated at the instance of Tehsildar, Shahkot, without obtaining orders from the District Collector, Jalandhar. Therefore, the entire proceedings for the appointment on the said post had been vitiated. After setting aside the order, the Commissioner remanded the matter to the Collector for fresh decision after initiation of the proceedings and inviting applications for appointment to the post of Lambardar. The said order of the Commissioner was upheld by the Financial Commissioner and the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging those orders has also been dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has not been disputed before us that in this case the Collector did not pass any order for initiating the proceedings for appointment of Lambardar. The Tehsildar, Shahkot at his own had initiated those proceedings and invited the applications without any order of the Collector. Under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, the Collector is the appointing authority who can initiate the proceedings for appointment of the Lambardar. However, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the initiation of the proceedings by the Tehsildar without any orders of the Collector, was a mere procedural irregularity, and merely on that basis the appointment of the appellant should not have been set aside, particularly when respondent No.3 had participated in the proceedings of appointment. In support of his contention, learned counsel relies upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Dilbag Singh Versus Financial Commissioner and others (CWP No.14054 of 2006), decided on 14.08.2008. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argued that the initiation of the proceedings for appointment of the Lambardar by Tehsildar, without any specific order from the Collector, is not a mere procedural irregularity, but this fact goes to the root of the matter, therefore, the learned Commissioner while noticing this fact, has rightly remanded the case to the Collector to make the fresh appointment after ordering initiation of the proceedings for the appointment of Lambardar by inviting applications. He further argued that no prejudice will be caused to any one if the fresh appointment of Lambardar is made after inviting applications in a proper way. The appellant and respondent No.3 have also been granted liberty to apply afresh in response to proclamation to be issued by the Collector. According to the learned counsel, when the revenue authorities have remanded the case after noticing defect in the appointment proceedings, such order does not require any interference by this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the learned Single judge has rightly declined to interfere in the remand order passed by the revenue authorities. It has not been disputed before us that under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 the Collector is the appointing authority. He has to initiate the proceedings for the appointment of Lambardar of the village. The Tehsildar was having no jurisdiction to initiate such proceedings. Therefore, the illegality which had been committed in this case, cannot be said to be mere procedural irregularity. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable. In that case, the Commissioner set aside the appointment of Lambardar on the ground that proper Munadi was not conducted by Naib Tehsildar. The Division Bench while setting aside the order of the Commissioner observed that non-conducting of the Munadi was a procedural irregularity and when the person who had challenged the appointment had also participated in the process of selection, then he was not affected by the alleged improper Munadi. But in the present case, it has not been disputed before us that before initiating the proceedings for the appointment of Lambardar, no order was at all obtained by the Tehsildar from the Collector. In these facts, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly not interfered in the orders passed by the revenue authorities. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 21, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE