CWP No.11448 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.11448 of 2011 Date of decision: 06.07.2011 Dilbag Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.10.2009 passed by Collector Jhajjar-respondent No.3 as well as order dated 1.4.2011 passed by Financial Commissioner-respondent No.1 herein thereby appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar of village Girawar. Brief facts of the present case are that Sh. Partap Singh S/o Nathan was the Lambardar of village Girawar; he resigned from the post of Lambardar and after that Sh. Ishwar Singh grandfather of petitioner was appointed as Lambardar of village Girawar and vacancy on the post of Lambardar accrued due to untimely demise of the then Lambardar Sh. Ishwar Singh. To fill up the same, Tehsildar, Jhajjar, invited applications from the interested and eligible candidates through proclamations in the village after taking permission from Collector, CWP No.11448 of 2011 2 Jhajjar. Petitioner as well as respondent No.4 submitted their applications. After completion of all the formalities, Tehsildar, Jhajjar, forwarded his report to SDO (Civil), Jhajjar, recommending the name of petitioner for the post of Lambardar, however, SDO (Civil), Jhajjar, recommended the name of Bharat Vir-respondent No.4 for appointment of Lambardar. SDO (Civil), Jhajjar, has reported in his recommendation that Dilbag Singh is in illegal encroachment of khasra No.120 gair mumkin rasta and is loanee of UCO Bank. Learned Collector vide its order dated 12.12.2007 sent back the recommendation of SDO (Civil), Jhajjar, with the direction to send fresh report on the basis of documentary evidence more particularly about the illegal encroachment of Sh. Dilbag Singh. SDO (Civil), Jhajjar, thereafter recommended the name of petitioner for appointment of new Lambardar. Learned Collector has heard learned counsel for both the parties. Learned Collector has returned the finding of fact that Dilbag Singh-petitioner had made encroachment on khasra No.120 gair mumkin rasta, which is ownership of the gram panchayat, which is proved from the order dated 30.10.2008 passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Jhajjar. He has further recorded that petitioner-Dilbag Singh has been fined for theft of canal water and fine is still outstanding against the petitioner, therefore, petitioner is not suitable to be appointed on the post of Lambardar in public interest. Learned Collector has compared the qualifications of both the candidates and has found favour with respondent No.4 and has, thus, appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar vide impugned order dated 27.10.2009. In the appeal, learned Commissioner did not agree with the CWP No.11448 of 2011 3 Collector and allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 27.5.2010. Respondent No.4 herein preferred revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, which was allowed by the Financial Commissioner vide impugned judgment dated 1.4.2011 upsetting the appellate authority's judgment and restoring the judgment of the Collector appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that finding of learned Collector that petitioner has been fined for theft of canal water and has encroached upon the rasta land on khasra No.120, is totally perverse, wrong and without any evidence. He has further argued that petitioner is more suitable candidate. A comparative chart has been submitted before this Court, which is as under: - Particulars Petitioner Respondent Age 42 years 46 years Education Qualification 7th pass 5th pass Agriculture land 11 acre 5 ½ acre Family Planning Cases 6 Nil Small savings Rs.5,20,000/- Rs.10,30,000/- Recommendations A.C. 1st Grade and A.C. 2nd Grade Nil Experience Worked with deceased Lambardar Ishwar Singh who was the grand father of the appellant No Experience CWP No.11448 of 2011 4 Particulars Petitioner Respondent Others Collected Abiana from 2003 after the death of Ishwar Singh Lambardar Nothing After giving serious consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that petitioner as well as respondent No.4 are 7th and 5th standard pass, respectively; petitioner is 42 years while respondent No.4 is 46 years; small savings made by petitioner is Rs.5,20,000/- while made by respondent No.4 is Rs.10,30,000/-. In the opinion of this Court, even if it is accepted that encroachment over the panchayat land and fine for theft of canal water is not supported by any cogent evidence, there is no valid reason to take contrary view to the view taken by learned Collector. It is the subjective decision of the Collector, which plays important role in the matter of appointment of Lambardar. Even if both the candidates for the post of Lambardar are almost having similar qualifications and qualities, subjective decision of the Collector must prevail. I myself have seen the comparative chart. From the perusal of the comparative chart, I do not find any special qualification in favour of the petitioner, which would have resulted in different opinion. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram and others, (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 439 has observed that if finding of Collector is not perverse and Collector did not fail to take into consideration the relevant factors or otherwise Collector's decision is not on extraneous considerations then opinion of the Collector should not be disturbed lightly. It is not the CWP No.11448 of 2011 5 case of the petitioner that decision of the Collector is on extraneous considerations or Collector has not compared the comparative merits/demerits of the petitioner and respondent No.4 before taking decision appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar. In the present case, I do not find any valid reason to take contrary view. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge July 06, 2011 R.S.