IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.20424 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 17, 2011 HARBANS SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE (APPEALS), PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT:Mr. AK Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. A.K. Sharma, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. BS Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. GS Nagra, Advocate, for respondent No.3. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This judgment shall dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions viz. CWP No.20424 of 2009 (Harbans Singh v. The Financial Commissioner Revenue (Appeals), Punjab and others) and CWP No.899 of 2010 (Waryam Singh v. The Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab and others), as the same orders have been impugned in regard to the same issue. 2 For reference to facts, record of CWP No.20424 of 2009 (Harbans Singh v. The Financial Commissioner Civil Writ Petition No.20424 of 2009 2 Revenue (Appeals), Punjab and others) is being taken up. 3 The post of Lambardar in Village Jalalabad, Tehsil Khadoor Sahib, District Tarn Taran, became available on the death of Karnail Singh, father of petitioner-Harbans Singh. It needs to be mentioned that Waryam Singh, petitioner in CWP 899 of 2010, is also son of Karnail Singh. Thus, two brothers have filed two petitions, both claiming a better right to be appointed as Lambardar of the village. 4 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the undisputed facts are that the Collector appointed Sukhwinder Singh as Lambardar. The appeal of Harbans Singh was accepted and, therefore, Harbans Singh has been appointed Lambardar by the Commissioner. The revision petition of Sukhwinder Singh has been allowed by the Financial Commissioner. Thus, the order passed by the Collector has been upheld while setting aside the order of the Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 6.10.2009 (Annexure P-3). 5 Sukhwinder Singh is 5th class pass, although no certificate in regard to the educational qualification is on the record; owns 78 kanals 12 marlas of land and is 48 years of age. Petitioner- Harbans Singh is 10th class pass, owns 51 kanals 10 marlas of land and is 42 years of age. Harbans Singh also claims the benefit of hereditary claim, Civil Writ Petition No.20424 of 2009 3 being the son of deceased-Lambardar. Waryam Singh is 5th class pass, although no evidence of educational qualification is on the record. Waryam Singh owns 51 kanals 10 marlas of land and is 38 years of age. 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Sukhwinder Singh is in illegal possession of 6 kanals of land of Gram Panchayat. On a specific query of the court, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to draw attention of the court towards any document, which was available on the record of the Collector or Commissioner, to make such fact evident and, therefore, the said fact cannot be considered, while considering the present petition. 7 It remains the factual position that the Collector chose Sukhwinder Singh to be appointed as the Lambardar. One of the reasons assigned is that Surat Singh, a brother of the petitioner, is also a Lambardar of some adjoining Patti. 8 Considering the contention of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the Collector is a revenue officer at the district level and is required to take work from a Lambardar, in terms of Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. None of the candidates has any particular demerit or disability. While Civil Writ Petition No.20424 of 2009 4 Sukhwinder Singh is less qualified, he has a larger land holding viz. 78 kanals 12 marlas of land. 9 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and finding the merit of the petitioners and Sukhwinder Singh to be, by and large, comparable, I am of the considered opinion that no legal infirmity can be traced in the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. It has been said by the Financial Commissioner that the order passed by the Collector is reasonable and there is no illegality or infirmity therein. Under such circumstances, the appellate forum i.e. Commissioner, was not required to interfere with the findings recorded by the Collector or the choice made by the Collector. 10 In such circumstances, both the petitions are dismissed as no reason for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. February 17, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?