IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1615 of 2011 Date of Decision: January 28, 2011 Kuldeep Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Challenge in this petition is to orders passed by the authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The District Collector appointed Gurnam Singh, respondent No.4, as Lambardar for village Sisia Kaliravan, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar. The petitioner carried an appeal to the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, which has been accepted. Private Respondent carried a revision before the Financial Commissioner which has been accepted CWP No.1615 of 2011 [2] thereby upholding the order passed by District Collector, Hisar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court towards the comparative merit. While petitioner is 32 years of age; 10+2 fail; having a land holding of 47 kanals 17 marlas; has contribution towards small savings to the tune of ₹ 31,80,000/-; and has eight family planning cases to his credit, respondent No.4 is 35 years of age; 10+2 passed; having 25 kanals 17 marlas of land; ₹ 12,40,000/- as contribution towards small savings; and six family planning cases. 3. Learned counsel contends that a bare consideration of the comparative chart would indicate better merit of the petitioner, and therefore, District Collector and the Financial Commissioner have erred in appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar. 4. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel. 5. Grand father of respondent No.4 was a Lambardar and therefore, it cannot be ruled out that respondent No.4 has some experience of lambardari. So far as, comparative merit is concerned, District Collector has given preference to respondent No.4 in appointing him CWP No.1615 of 2011 [3] as Lambardar. Respondent No.4 is more educated. No disability or ineligibility in the merit of respondent No.4 can be traced. Merit is comparative. 6. I do not find that discretion exercised by the District Collector is perverse in any manner or arbitrary in effect. In such circumstances, no interference in the order of District Collector was called for and therefore, Commissioner clearly erred in interfering in appellate jurisdiction. In these circumstances, order of Financial Commissioner upholding the order passed by the District Collector in appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar cannot be faulted with. 7. No ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 8. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) January 28, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?