C.W.P.No.21340 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.21340 of 2011 Date of Decision:-8.12.2011 Nirmal Dass ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Arun Takhi, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) After completing all the codal formalities, as contemplated under the provisions of The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and the relevant Rules”) and comparing the respective merits and demerits of the candidates, the Collector (respondent No.3) appointed Balvir Ram son of Parkash Ram (respondent No.4) as Lambardar (SC) of village Anokharwal, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by virtue of impugned order dated 25.2.2010 (Annexure P1). 2. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P1), petitioner Nirmal Dass son of Shankar Dass filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Commissioner Jalandhar Division (respondent No.2), by means of impugned order dated 12.5.2011 (Annexure P2). 3. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P1 & P2), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner C.W.P.No.21340 of 2011 -2- was more meritorious than respondent No.4, so, the authorities below committed a legal mistake to appoint him (respondent No.4) on the indicated post of Lambardar, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 6. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the Collector is the appointing authority of the Lambardar. The appointment of Lambardar is administrative function and is prerogative of the District Collector, being In-charge of the Administration. He is in an advantageous position to examine the merits and demerits of the candidates. Therefore, it would always be in the interest of justice & administration and it is the duty of the Collector to appoint such person in the office of Lambardar, who is eligible and competent to carry out the duties efficiently. 7. As is evident from the record that respondent No.4 is more educated. He is young in age and his name was recommended by the Tehsildar and SDO(C)- cum-AC 1st Grade. Having considered the respective pros and cons of the candidates, the Collector appointed him (respondent No.4) as Lambardar (SC) of the village, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P1), which, in substance, is as under:- “After hearing arguments of all candidates and going through the file, I have come to the conclusion that out of all the candidates, Shri Balvir Ram S/o Shri Parkash Ram resident of Village Anokharwal who is the permanent resident of Village Anokharwal, his age is 46 years, he is prep passed, his financial position is good, he has 8 marlas of land in the Village. He has own house for living, having good conduct, he is presently a Member of Panchayat, does work with Social Service Organizations, young out of all candidates and more educated. Therefore, he is a fit candidate to be appointed as Lambardar. Tehsildar Nawanshahr and Sub Divisional Magistrate Nawanshahr have also recommended his name. Therefore, I am in full agreement with the report of Tehsildar Nawanshahr and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawanshahr and appoint as new Lambardar of Village Anokharwal, Tehsil Nawanshahr District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar to candidate Shri Balvir Ram Singh S/o Shri Parkash Ram in place of Shri Shankar Singh deceased Lambardar (SC) of Village Anokharwal, Tehsil C.W.P.No.21340 of 2011 -3- Nawanshahr. The candidate is directed that he may submit application for issuance of Sanad Lambardari.” 8. Possibly, it cannot be denied that it is now well settled proposition of law that choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of village Lambardar is final and should not normally be interfered with, unless and until the Collector has taken a perverse view, or has not exercised his choice judiciously, or where the order discloses a lack of jurisdiction or an error of fact so palpable, as to render his order arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable and not otherwise. The same are totally lacking in this case. As indicated earlier, in the present case, the Collector has rightly weighed the respective merits and demerits of the candidates and appointed Balvir Ram (respondent No.4) as Lambardar. Not only that, the choice of the Collector was further upheld by the Commissioner, vide impugned order (Annexure P2). 9. Sequelly, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned orders (Annexures P1 & P2 ) are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant direction. 10. Meaning thereby, since the authorities below have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection, so, to me, no ground for interference, in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction of this Court is made out. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner 12. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 8.12.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No