IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5182 of 2010 Date of Decision: February 10, 2011 Bhim Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Saini, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate, for respondent No.3. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 11.1.2010 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide which respondent No.3, Prem Singh son of Inder Singh has been CWP No.5182 of 2010 [2] appointed as Lambardar while upholding the order passed by the Collector, Karnal and setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. Challenge is also to Order dated 4.9.2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Collector, Karnal. 2. Before proceeding further, it needs to be noticed that the case was remanded back twice by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana; once in December 2003 and second time in October 2006 on the issue whether the private respondent was involved in a criminal case and therefore had earned disability, and whether the said respondent was at all resident of the village of which he wants to be appointed as Lambardar viz. village Kutail, Tehsil & District Karnal. 3. The comparative merit of the candidates in regard to which there is no dispute is that petitioner (Bhim Singh) is 36 years of age; is a graduate and diploma holder in computer education. Petitioner owns 6 kanal and 11 marlas of land in village Kutail and 32 kanals in another village Mubarakabad. Petitioner further got Fixed Deposits to the tune of ` 57 lac and 15 family planning cases. Respondent No.3, to the contrary, is 55 years of age, 9th class pass and owns 10 acres of land in village Kutail. So far CWP No.5182 of 2010 [3] as contribution to the public and social standing is concerned, the said respondent got Fixed Deposits worth ` 45,74,000/- and Fixed Deposit to the tune of ` 8 lac in his own name; one LIC policy and 9 cases of family planning. Respondent himself has been a Sarpanch for one term. Mother of the said respondent has been Panch for one term. Petitioner has been a member of the Block Samiti for 5 years and father of the petitioner also remained Sarpanch of the village. 4. So far as the above given facts and figures are concerned, the Financial Commissioner in Order dated 11.1.2010 (Annexure P-9), has returned findings based on relevant record and material, and therefore, call for no interference. 5. So far as the criminal record of respondent No.3 is concerned, a criminal complaint was filed against him which ended in a compromise. The complaint itself was filed for commission of offence under Sections 323, 324, 326, 341 and 506 IPC. Acquittal was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Karnal, vide decision dated 2.9.2000. 6. Considering the overall merits/ disabilities, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent has substantially more social CWP No.5182 of 2010 [4] standing as compared to the petitioner, if the facts and circumstances of the case given hereinabove are considered. To the contrary, the petitioner is youngest in age and has more education. However, the petitioner has substantially low land holding viz. only 6 kanal and 11 marlas, whereas private respondent owns 10 acres of land. 7. In objective consideration of the Financial Commissioner, it appears that weightage has been given to the social standing of the respondents. The law in regard to appointment of Lambardar in the context of choice of the Collector has been considered to say that decision of the Collector in this regard should not be interfered with, unless it is perverse in law and facts. 8. It is the District Collector who is revenue officer at the District level and has to extract work from a Lambardar in the context of Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. A Lambardar is required to know the villagers and other details in the estate for performance/ discharge of his duties. 9. A Lambardar is required to remain present, by and large at all hours, in the village for discharge of his duties. The duties CWP No.5182 of 2010 [5] involve active interaction with the villagers/ residents of the area. Headman/ Lambardar is required to be aware of the deaths in the village for various reports to be made. He is required to be aware of the pensioners residing in the estate; marriage/ re-marriage of a female drawing family pension residing in the estate or in case any such person goes absent from estate. He is also required to be aware of the encroachments on roads or Government buildings within the boundaries of estate. He is required to conduct crop inspections so as to assist the Collector. He is further required to attend the summons of authorities having jurisdiction in the estate and assist all officers of the Government in execution of their public duties. 10. Relevant portion of Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (as applicable to Haryana) is in the following terms:- “15. Matters to be considered in first appointments. — In all first appointments to headman, regard shall be had among other matters to – (a) his hereditary claims; (b) extent of property in the estate possessed by the candidate; (c) services rendered to the State by himself or by his family; (d) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness; (e) the strength and importance of the community from which selection of a headman is to be made; CWP No.5182 of 2010 [6] (f) services rendered by himself or by his family in the national movements to secure freedom of India; xx xx xx xx xx (g) services rendered by himself to the community and development programmes; (h) he shall be not less than 21 years of age at the time of inviting the application for the appointment of Lambardar; (i) he should be literate, preferably middle pass.” 11. The above extracted portion of Rule 15, in particular Rule 15(c),(d),(e),(f) and (g), indicates that the personal influence, character, services rendered to the State by himself or by the family, service rendered to the community and development programmes are relevant considerations for appointment of a Lambardar. The petitioner and his family, as per facts given above, fulfil the criteria. The criminal case itself was by way of a criminal complaint and not FIR case. It ended in acquittal. Thus the overall fact situation certainly indicates better merit of respondent No.3. 12. The Collector having chosen respondent No.3 as the person for appointment as Lambardar considering his social status and standing in the context of duties to be discharged, I am of the considered opinion that Financial Commissioner committed no illegality in CWP No.5182 of 2010 [7] upholding the order of the Collector. One opinion that could be formulated in the context of comparative merit has been formed by the Financial Commissioner in giving weightage to the social standing of the respondent. No perversity in the same can be traced. 13. No reason for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is called for. 14. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) February 10, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?