CWP No.8519 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8519 of 2009 Date of decision:21.07.2010 Balwinder Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA. Present: Mr.S.S.Swaich, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr.J.S.Toor, Advocate for respondents no.4 and 6. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA.J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 14.05.2007, 10.01.2008 and 10.07.2008, passed by the Collector, Ropar, the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala and the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Collector, rejecting the petitioner's candidature and selecting respondent no.4, as the Lambardar is non-speaking. It is argued that while selecting a Lambardar, revenue officers exercise quasi-judicial powers and are therefore required to pass a speaking order. A perusal of the impugned order however, reveals that no reasons whatsoever have been assigned whether against the petitioner or in favour of respondent no.4. The finding that the petitioner's father is in unauthorised occupation of Panchayat property, is irrelevant and therefore, could not have been considered as the CWP No.8519 of 2009 -2- matter has already been compromised by exchanging land with the Gram Panchayat. Counsel for private respondents no.4 and 6 on the other hand, submits that the petitioner and his father are in unauthorised occupation of Panchayat property and despite the exchange of land with the Gram Panchayat, they are still in possession of Panchayat property. It is further argued that the Collector selected the respondent no.4 after considering the merits and demerits of the parties and therefore his order though brief, cannot be said to be non-speaking. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and find no reason to hold that the choice of the Collector is arbitrary, perverse or contrary to any provision of law. It would be necessary to mention that apart from a larger land holding, respondent no.4 is younger in age and is better educated. The petitioner is a matriculate whereas respondent no.4 has passed the 10+2 examination and has taken a computer course. The choice of the Collector, therefore, cannot be said to be in any manner illegal, void or perverse. Reliance has been placed by counsel for the petitioner upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MMRDA Officers Association Versus Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority and another, 2005(2) RSJ 362 and a judgment of this Court in Brahma Nand (died) through his LRs Versus Gram Panchayat, Harnavli, 1997(1) PLR 113, in support of his assertion that the Collector is required to pass a reasoned order has no relevance to the present controversy as the Collector, has examined the merits and demerits of all parties concerned and after due consideration, passed an order, rejecting the candidature of the petitioner and selecting respondent no.4. As CWP No.8519 of 2009 -3- regards the plea that the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, have not passed speaking orders, suffice it to state, that both these officers affirmed the choice of the Collector and in the absence of arbitrary exercise of discretion, a perverse consideration of the facts or violation of any provision of law, were justified in rejecting the petitioner's candidature and dismissing his appeal and revision. Dismissed. 21.07.2010 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE