IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1699 of 2011 Date of Decision: January 31, 2011 Sushil Kumar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Appeals & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition challenges order dated 17.11.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by District Collector, Hisar; order dated 19.1.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar; and order dated 14.7.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. 2. District Collector appointed respondent No.4, Hans Raj, as Lambardar for CWP No.1699 of 2011 [2] village Jeetpura, Majra Bhatol Rangdan, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar. Appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Commissioner and the revision petition has also approved the order passed by the District Collector. 3. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is a better candidate vis-a-vis respondent No.4, Hans Raj, in so much as, petitioner has 50 kanals and 13 marlas of land which is more than Hans Raj, and the petitioner is a younger candidate. 4. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel. 5. It has been repeatedly held that District Collector being the revenue officer, who has to take work from the Lambardar/ headman, is the appropriate authority to appoint Lambardar. 6. On looking at the comparative merit of petitioner and Hans Raj, who has been appointed as Lambardar, I find that no perversity can be traced in the discretion exercised by the District Collector. One of the issues against the petitioner is that father of the petitioner did not pay Abiana which was deposited by him subsequently. It shows the tendency to remain in arrears. Father of the petitioner was earlier the Lambardar. On the one part, benefit of hereditary claim is sought and on the other side, it has CWP No.1699 of 2011 [3] been argued that misconduct of father of the petitioner be ignored for consideration of claim of the petitioner for appointment as Lambardar. I find no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. No ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 8. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) January 31, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?