Civil Writ Petition No.12648 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12648 of 2009 Date of Decision:01.11.2011 Lakhwant Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through Financial Commissioner and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Harpreet S.Rakhra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr.R.S.Ghuman, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Having considered the respective merits and demerits of the candidates, accepted the recommendation of the SDO(Civil) and after following the due procedure, as contemplated under the provisions of The Punjab Land Revenue Act and Rules framed thereunder(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and the Relevant Rules”), the District Collector, Sangrur, appointed petitioner- Lakhwant Singh son of Gurbax Singh as Lambardar of the Village Gujjran, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, vide order dated 29.03.2005(Annexure P-2). 2. Dissatisfied with the order(Annexure P-2), Navgeet Singh son of Sukhdev Singh(respondent No.2) filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, by virtue of order dated 24.08.2005(Annexure P-3). 3. Again, aggrieved by the orders(Annexures P-2 and P-3), respondent Civil Writ Petition No.12648 of 2009 2 No.2 filed the revision petition, which was accepted by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, by means of impugned order dated 18.02.2009(Annexure P-4). 4. Faced with the situation, petitioner-Lakhwant Singh did not feel satisfied and preferred the present civil writ petition, challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-4) invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that, the Financial Commissioner has rightly reversed the choice of the Collector upheld by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, and appointed him(respondent No.2) as Lambardar of the Village, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that, the Collector is the appointing authority of the Lambardar. The appointment of Lambardar is administrative function and is prerogative of the District Collector, being In-charge of the Administration. It is the duty of the Collector to appoint such person in the office of Lambardar, who is eligible and competent to carry out the duties efficiently. He is in an advantageous position to examine the merits and demerits of the candidates more closely. 8. As is evident from the record that, having considered the respective pros and cons of the candidates and after following the due procedure, as envisaged under the Act and the Relevant Rules, the District Collector appointed the petitioner on the indicated post of Lambardar, by way of order dated 29.03.2005(Annexure P-2), which in substance is as under:- Civil Writ Petition No.12648 of 2009 3 “I heard arguments of both the counsels and also inspect the record of the case and found that the Lakhwant Singh opposite candidate of Navgeet Singh is more eligible for lambardari. May be he(Navgeet Singh) is the son of deceased lambardar but his house is at Prem Basti Sangrur and he is serving at Chandigarh in Reliance. If Navgeet Singh candidate is appointed as lambardar so village persons will not be benefitted(sic.) from him because of his living out of village. In opposite of that Lakhwant Singh candidate has permanent residence in village Gujjran so that he is always available for village people if they have worked with him. Sub-Divisional Magistrate is also recommended the name of(sic.) Lakhwant Singh to appoint for the post of lambardar. Agree with him appointed Lakhwant Singh candidate as lambardar on the place of deceased lambardar Sukhdev Singh.” 9. Not only that, the choice of the Collector was further upheld by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, through the medium of order dated 24.08.2005(Annexure P-3). 10. Strange enough that, the Financial Commissioner has reversed the well-reasoned choice/orders of the Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, without discussing comparative merits and demerits of the candidates and appointed respondent No.2 on the abovesaid post of Lambardar, in a very casual manner. As is clear from the impugned order(Annexure P-4) that, the main ground which appears to have been weighed with the Financial Commissioner, in upsetting the choice of the Collector, confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, was that “even if the contention of the other party regarding his working outside the village is taken on the face value, still it does not make him ineligible for the post of Lambardar and that respondent No.2(herein) is the better choice”. 11. Here, to me, the Financial Commissioner has committed a legal mistake in this relevant behalf. How, on what basis and in what manner respondent No.2 is more meritorious than the petitioner(herein) remains an unfolded mystery. The sweeping observations of the Financial Commissioner, are Civil Writ Petition No.12648 of 2009 4 without any material and legal basis. He ought to have discussed the material on record and was legally required to indicate the valid reasons, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties and for arriving at a conclusion that respondent No.2 is more meritorious, which is totally lacking in the present case. 12. On the contrary, as discussed hereinabove, the Collector as well as the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, inter alia, noticed that respondent No.2 is residing at Prem Basti Sangrur and is serving at Chandigarh. He is not available in the village, to effectively perform his duty as Lambaradar, whereas petitioner-Lakhwant Singh is the permanent resident of Village Gujjran. He is always available for the village people and his name was recommended by the SDO(Civil). 13. Meaning thereby, the Collector as well as the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, have recorded the valid grounds in this relevant connection and there was no material, much less cogent, to set aside the orders(Annexures P-2 and P-3), before the Financial Commissioner, that too in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction. 14. Possibly, no one can dispute the well-settled proposition of law that, the choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of village Lambardar should not normally be interfered with, specially when it is accepted by the Commissioner as well, unless the Collector has taken a perverse view and has not exercised his choice judiciously. 15. At the same time, learned counsel for respondent No.2 did not point out any such patent illegality or legal infirmity in the choice of the Collector, for appointment on the abovementioned post of Lambardar, further confirmed by the Commissioner. 16. In this manner, to my mind, the Financial Commissioner fell in a deep legal error, in passing the impugned order(Annexure P-4) and reversing the valid choice of the Collector, in the matter of appointment of the Lambardar, vide Civil Writ Petition No.12648 of 2009 5 order(Annexure P-2), particularly when his choice was sequelly affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, by means of order(Annexure P-3). Therefore, the impugned order(Annexure P-4) of the Financial Commissioner cannot legally be sustained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 17. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant writ petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned order(Annexure P-4) of the Financial Commissioner is hereby set aside and the order(Annexure P-2) of the Collector affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, by way of order(Annexure P-3), are restored accordingly. November 01, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No