IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.718 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 19.04.2011 Surjit Singh …..Appellant versus The Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Patiala and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Vishwajit Bedi, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) CM No.1885 of 2011 In view of reasons mentioned in this application, it is allowed and ten days delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.718 of 2011 (O&M) Appointment to the post of Lambardar in village Jasso Majra, tehsil Nabha, district Patiala, is in dispute in this appeal. To fill up the said post, applications were invited. After getting recommendations from the lower revenue staff, the Collector appointed respondent No.2 as Lambardar of the village. When making that appointment, it was observed as under:- “I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel for both the candidates and have carefully scanned the record of the case. Both the LPA No.718 of 2011(O&M) candidates are educated persons and have been reported to be of good character. It is a fact that Surjit Singh owns more land in comparison to Rajinder Pal Singh. But Financial Commissioner, Punjab has held in ROR No.459 of 1995-96 decided on 24.8.98 that ownership of land is not a very major factor now as land revenue has been abolished in the State of Punjab. Rajinder Pal Singh is the nephew of Lambardar. The then District Collector, Patiala had give his orders dated 26.8.2003 had appointed appointed Rajinder Pal Singh as Sarbrah of Surjit Singh Lambardar and as such he knows the job and deserves to be appointed as Lambardar. From a perusal of the affidavits of Gurdev Kaur Panch, Gurnam Kaur Panch, Balwinder Singh Panch and Raghudin Singh Panch of the Gram Panchayat, Jassomajora and of Gurjeet Singh General Secretary, Maujawan Samaj Sudhar Sabha, Jassomajra I find that Surjit Singh is not a reliable person and as such is not fit for the office of Lambardar. Accordingly, I appoint Rajinder Pal Singh as Lambardar of village Jassomajra. Sanad be issued. Announced, this 18th day of September 2007.” The Collector had noted that members of the Gram Panchayat had filed affidavits against the appellant, leveling allegation of committing a forgery in a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. By taking that allegation as a gospel truth, respondent No.2 was appointed as a Lambardar of the village. Appellant went in appeal, which was accepted by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, vide order dated 6.10.2009. It was observed that the District Collector, when appointing the respondent No.2 2 LPA No.718 of 2011(O&M) as Lambardar had not given any reason as to why he is ignoring the appellant and preferring respondent No.2 for the said post. Respondent No.2 went in revision, which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Appeals, Punjab on 1.4.2010. Respondent No.2 came to this Court by filing CWP No.7066 of 2010, which was allowed vide the impugned judgment dated 22.2.2011, orders passed by the Financial Commissioner and the Commissioner, stated above, were set aside, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner, Patiala Division at Patiala to decide the appeal filed by the appellant afresh on merits. We feel that the order passed is perfectly justified. Record reveals that the Commissioner, instead of giving finding on merits, only by pin-pointing some loopholes in the order passed by the Collector, reversed an order passed in favour of respondent No.2 appointing him as Lambardar of the village. Ordinarily, the Collector’s choice in appointing a Lambardar is final until and unless it is perverse in law and is not in conformity with the facts on record. This aspect was not taken note of by the Commissioner when passing an order in favour of the appellant. Order passed by the learned Single Judge is very innocuous and needs no interference. No harm has been caused to the appellant. His appeal has been ordered to be decided on merits. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 19.04.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 3