Civil Writ Petition No.11359 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11359 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 5, 2011 Chander Bhan ...... Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner-Chander Bhan has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of impugned orders dated 19.1.2011 and 16.3.2011 passed by Financial Commissioner, Chandigarh as well as order dated 13.8.2010, passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon, and order dated 12.1.2010, passed by Collector, Mahendergarh, by virtue of which the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Lambardar of village Kherki was declined and Mahavir Singh son of Prabhu Dayal was appointed as Lambardar of the said village. Brief facts for the disposal of present petition are that Prabhu Dayal, Lambardar died on 23.1.1985. Mahavir Singh son of Prabhu Dayal moved an application for appointment on the post of Lambardar and Civil Writ Petition No.11359 of 2011 2 Assistant Collector- IInd Grade, Mahendergarh got conducted munadi after receiving permission from the Collector on 19.6.2008 and as such six applications including Chander Bhan-petitioner were received. After inquiry and recording the statements of witnesses, the Assistant Collector-IInd Grade and Assistant Collector-1st Grade, Mahendergarh recommended the name of Mahavir Singh. Chander Bhan-petitioner moved an application before Collector against recommendation of the name of Mahavir Singh as Lambardar on the ground that said Mahavir Singh is a defaulter and recovery proceedings are pending against him and that he has also misappropriated Panchayat property during the construction of Dharmshala and as such his name cannot be considered for appointment as Lamberdar of the village. The Collector after hearing both the parties and after going through the records found Mahavir Singh son of Prabhu Dayal a fit candidate for appointment on the post of Lambardar of village Kherki. Chander Bhan-petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order of District Collector, Mahendragarh and the Commissioner Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon after thoughtful consideration of the arguments and the material available on record dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Still not satisfied with the said order, the petitioner knocked the door of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana by way of revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 which also met the same fate. Feeling aggrieved against the said impugned orders the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court by way of present writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records. Civil Writ Petition No.11359 of 2011 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner, Haryana are illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the provisions of Land Revenue Act. He has further argued that the observations of the Collector that the petitioner is not a permanent resident of village Kherki is totally wrong as he has placed on record Ration Card as well as his Voter Identity Card to show that he is a permanent resident of the said village. He has further argued that he is also participating in the social work of the village and also donated ` 2100/- to Gaushala whereas Mahavir Singh-respondent No.4 was defaulter of the bank since 1992 and his father had also misappropriated the panchayat property and as such the appointment of respondent No.4 Mahavir Singh is illegal on the face of it and he (the petitioner) is eligible for appointment on the post of Lamberdar of village Kherki and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Undisputedly, the comparative chart between the petitioner and respondent No.4 is as under :- Seria l No. Chander Bhan-petitioner Mahavir Singh- respondent No.4. 1. Age 49 years 52 years 2. Qualification Matric Matric 3. Land 36 kanal and 1 marla 54 kanal and 13 marlas On the basis of character verification and other evidence collected by the Assistant Collector, Grade-II and Assistant Collector, Grade-I, Mahendragarh recommending the name of Mahavir Singh for appointment on the post of Lambardar and thereafter the Collector after having gone through the records and the fact that Chander Bhan-petitioner is running a shop in village Sheopura (Rajasthan), whereas Mahavir Singh Civil Writ Petition No.11359 of 2011 4 is having more land for the purpose of recovery and the fact that he remained Sarpanch of the village and his father also remained Sarpanch of village for four times, found Mahavir Singh a fit candidate for appointment as Lamberdar. In Mahavir Singh vs. Khayali Ram and others, (2009)3 SCC 439, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that ordinarily the opinion of the Collector is to be treated as final and should not be disturbed without any plausible reason. Applying the said ratio, I find that the order of the Collector was correct in appointing Mahavir Singh as Lambardar, of the village and there is nothing on record to disturb the opinion of the Collector appointing Mahavir Singh as Lambardar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any special ground on the basis of which the name of respondent No.4 should not be considered for appointment as Lambardar. Ordinarily, while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not reappreciate the evidence and as such in the opinion of this Court the order of the Collector as well as the order of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana appointing Mahavir Singh as Lambardar are legal and valid and there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the findings arrived at by the Collector. There is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. (Alok Singh) Judge July 5, 2011 Anand