Civil Writ Petition No. 5860 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 5860 of 2009 Date of Order: 09.02.2010 Lakhwinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. A.B.S.Sidhu ,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 and 2. Mr. O.P.Kamboj, Advocate for respondents No.3 RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the orders dated 29.05.2008 and 15.01.2009, passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab, Chandigarh, respectively. Upon the demise of the incumbent lambardar, revenue authorities invited applications for appointment to the post of lambardar of village Bahalwalpur, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur. After considering the merits of the applicants, the Collector appointed the petitioner as the lambardar. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector, respondent Civil Writ Petition No. 5860 of 2009 -2- no.3 filed an appeal. The Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, accepted the appeal, set aside the order of Collector and appointed respondent no.3 as the lambardar. The Commissioner held that as the petitioner does not own any property, is illiterate and has encroached upon 11 marlas of land belonging to the Gram Panchayat, he cannot be appointed as the Lambardar. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision, which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commissioner appointed respondent no.3 without perusing the record. The Commissioner has ignored the certificate that the petitioner has studied upto class four and the finding by the Collector that the petitioner can read and write Punjabi. The report dated 10.04.2008, held by the Commissioner as evidence of the petitioner's unauthorised occupation, clearly states that without demarcation by revenue authorities, it cannot be conclusively established that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation. The Commissioner, however, relied upon this report to hold that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of panchayat property. It is also pointed out that on 10.09.2007, the petitioner's father transferred three acres of land to the petitioner. The mutation of transfer of land was ignored by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner while holding that the petitioner does not own any land. Counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that the reasons set out by the Commissioner, for rejecting the petitioner's candidature, are borne out from the record. The petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of panchayat property, is illiterate and does Civil Writ Petition No. 5860 of 2009 -3- not own any land. His candidature was, therefore, rightly rejected. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. It is a settled position in law that the choice of the Collector, except where it is arbitrary, palpably perverse or suffer from any error of law is final. In the absence of any such disability in the choice of the Collector, appellate and the revisional authorities would do well to refrain from imposing their own perception of the best candidate. I have carefully perused the order passed by the Commissioner and heard counsel for the parties. The order discloses an abject failure on the part of the Commissioner to peruse the record, thereby leading to a misreading of the documents on record and the recording of findings that are based upon incorrect facts. The Commissioner has held that as the petitioner does not own any land, is illiterate and is in unauthorised occupation of panchayat property, he cannot be appointed as the Lambardar. Counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the report dated 10.04.2008, relied upon by the Commissioner to hold that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of panchayat property. The report clearly states that without demarcation by revenue authorities, it cannot be conclusively said that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of panchayat land. If the Commissioner had perused the report, he could not have held that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of panchayat land. The finding that the petitioner is illiterate is also factually incorrect. The petitioner has passed the class four examination and as recorded by the Collector can read and write Punjabi. Another finding, against the petitioner is that he Civil Writ Petition No. 5860 of 2009 -4- does not own any land. The petitioner's father has transferred three acres of land to the petitioner on 10.09.2007, prior to date of consideration. The petitioner was, therefore, the owner of three acres of land sufficiently literate and is not in unauthorised occupation of panchayat property. The rejection of the petitioner's candidature, on a misreading of the report and an incorrect appraisal of facts is arbitrary and perverse. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner have interfered with the choice of the Collector without considering the material on record by misreading documents on record and by recording conclusions that are contrary to the facts on record. As a result, I have no option but to set aside their orders and affirm the order passed by the Collector. As a consequence, this writ petition is allowed, the orders dated 29.05.2008 and 15.01.2009, passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab, Chandigarh, are set aside and the order passed by the Collector is affirmed. February 09, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE