IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1549 of 2010 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 05.01.2011 Tara Singh .... APPELLANT Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. K.L. Dhawan, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) Appellant Tara Singh has filed this appeal against the order dated 21.5.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition No. 9506 of 2010, filed by the appellant challenging the orders dated 9.6.2009, 6.10.2009 and 16.3.2010, passed by the Collector, Ludhiana, the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh, respectively, appointing respondent No.4 as the Lambardar of village Lasara Lakhuwas, Tehsil Payal, has been dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the aforesaid orders as well as the order, passed by the learned LPA No. 1549 of 2010 -2- Single Judge. Respondent No.4 Chamkaur Singh, who is an Ex-Serviceman, has been appointed as Lambardar of the village by the Collector, who is the appointing authority, after taking into consideration the comparative merit of both the candidates, i.e. the appellant and respondent No.4. Name of the appellant was recommended by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Payal, for his appointment as Lambardar. On perusal of the order of the Collector, we find that the Collector, while taking into consideration four factors, (i) that he is an Ex-Serviceman and served the nation for 18 years; (ii) he is son of the deceased Lambardar; (iii) majority of the people of the village had supported his claim for appointment as Lambardar; and (iv) age of both the candidates, as respondent No.4 is only 42 years old, whereas the appellant is of 63 years of age, has appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that respondent No.4 was in un-authorised and illegal possession of the Panchayat land, therefore, he was not eligible for being appointed as Lambardar. This aspect was considered by the Collector as well as the appellate and the revisional authorities and it has been held that no proof was given in that regard, therefore, it cannot be taken that respondent No.4 was in un-authorised occupation of the Panchayat land. This point has also been considered by the learned Single Judge, while coming to the conclusion that there is no material on the basis of which, it can be said that respondent No.4 was in un-authorised occupation of the Panchayat land. Thus, we do not find any LPA No. 1549 of 2010 -3- force in the contention. The other contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that respondent No.4 has been appointed only on the basis of the hereditary claim, which is not permissible, as has been held by this Court in Bhagwan Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 862. We have also considered this submission. In our opinion, respondent No.4 was not appointed as Lambardar, exclusively on the basis that he was son of the deceased Lambardar. He has been appointed, while taking into consideration various factors, in which hereditary claim was one of them. In comparative merit, he was found better. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.4 was appointed as Lambardar exclusively on the basis of hereditary claim. In view of above, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE January 05, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE