IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17770 of 2007 Date of decision: 7.7.2009 Ranjit Singh ….. Petitioner Versus Ld. Financial Commissioner and Others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Jasjit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4. None for respondent No.5 **** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved against the orders dated 20.7.2006 (Annexure P12) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals I) Punjab (respondent No.1), the order dated 8.8.2003 (Annexure P9) passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala (respondent No.2) and the order dated 20.6.2002 (Annexure P3) passed by the learned District Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib (respondent No.3) whereby Avtar Singh (respondent No.4) has been appointed as Lambardar. Harchand Singh, Lambardar of Patti Mana of village Jalalpur Tehsil Amloh District Fatehgarh Sahib was removed by the District Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib on 24.2.2000. On account of his removal proceedings were initiated for filling up the vacant office of Lambardar. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade on CWP No. 17770 of 2007 2 15.10.2001 recommended the name of Avtar Singh (respondent No.4) on the ground that Gram Panchayat had passed a resolution in his favour. The Tehsildar on 19.10.2001 endorsed the recommendation of the Assistant Collector Grade II. The matter was put up before the Assistant Collector, Grade-I i.e. the SDM, Fatehgarh Sahib who recommended the name of Labh Singh (respondent No.5). The matter was then considered by the Collector who vide order dated 20.6.2002 (Annexure P3) appointed Avtar Singh (respondent No.4) as Lambardar of Patti Mana. The petitioner aggrieved against the order of the Collector filed an appeal (Annexure P4) before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala (respondent No.2) which was dismissed by the Commissioner on 8.8.2003 (Annexure P9). Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1) which has been dismissed on 20.7.2006 (Annexure P12). Aggrieved against the same, the present petition has been filed. Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been non-suited only on the ground that the petitioner is an agent of M/s. RR Sales and therefore, it was observed that he would not be available in the village all the time. It is submitted that in fact the petitioner is more meritorious inasmuch as he is BA pass, whereas Avtar Singh (respondent No.4) is a matriculate. Besides, it is submitted that merely because he is an agent of M/s. RR Sales, it cannot be said that he would not be able to perform his duties. In fact even a Government employee has been held by a Division Bench in the case of Sukhminder Singh v. Financial Commissioner, 1992 (2) PLR 1973 to be suitable for appointment as Lambardar. Besides, it is submitted that the Collector is not the final word for appointment of Lambardar in support of his contention learned counsel cites Krishan Gopal v. State of Haryana, 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 330. Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench judgment in the case of Amarjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner and others CWP No. 16513 of 2006 decided on 7.11.2008 wherein CWP No. 17770 of 2007 3 the orders of Commissioner and Financial Commissioner were set aside upholding the order of Collector. Learned counsel also made a reference to the partnership deed (Annexure P5) to contend that the petitioner was only sleeping partner of 30%. Therefore, it is submitted that being a sleeping partner, his profession ought not to come in the way of his consideration for appointment as Lambardar. In response, learned counsel for Avtar Singh (respondent No.4) has submitted that Avtar Singh (respondent No.4) was recommended by the Assistant Collector after considering the merits of the candidates who applied for consideration for appointment as Lambardar. Besides, his appointment has been upheld by all the authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act and there is no such circumstance which would warrant any interference in the matter of choice of the Lambardar in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. A perusal of the order dated 20.6.2002 (Annexure P3) passed by the learned District Collector, Fategarh Sahib (respondent No.3) would show that the District Collector, Fategarh Sahib found Avtar Singh (respondent No.4) to be more suitable for appointment. It was observed that he is a matriculate and is not a defaulter of Chulah Tax. Besides, he owns 22 kanals 4 marlas of land which was sufficient for the payment of land revenue. He was younger to the other candidates. Besides, more number of persons had deposed in his favour for appointment as Lambardar. The Assistant Collector, Grade-II, Amloh had also recommended his name. Assistant Collector, Grade-I, Amloh, however, did not agree with the said recommendation and recommended the name of Labh Singh (respondent No.5). The District Collector, however, appointed Avtar Singh (respondent No.4) as Lambardar. It was noticed that Ranjit Singh (petitioner) was an agent of RR Sales, so he would not be available in the village at all times. The said order has been upheld by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala (respondent No.2) as also by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I) Punjab (respondent No.1). It is no doubt that a government employee has been held CWP No. 17770 of 2007 4 to be suitable for appointment as Lambardar by a Division Bench of this Court in Sukhminder Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Supra). However, it may be noticed that appointment of a Lambardar is an administrative act and primarily the prerogative of the District Collector. As such, an order appointing a person as a Lambardar by the District Collector is normally not to be undone lightly unless and until it is shown that there is some gross irregularity or patent error in his appointment or that the decision is in any manner perverse. This Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not to sit in appeal over the decision of the authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act and substitute its decision as regards the choice of a Lambardar suitable for appointment. Therefore, Avtar Singh (respondent No.4) having been appointed as Lambardar would not warrant any interference of this Court as there is nothing to show that the administrative decision that has been reached at by the revenue authorities has not taken into consideration relevant material which was liable to be taken into consideration in the decision making process or has taken into consideration irrelevant material. Besides, the decision is not shown to be in any manner perverse. In Krishan Gopal v. State of Haryana (Supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was held that Collector is not the final word. In the said case, the appointment made by the Collector was set aside by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. However, in the present case, the appointment made by the Collector has been upheld in appeal as well as in revision by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala (respondent No.2) as well as learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals I), Punjab (respondent No.1) respectively. In Amarjit Singh’s case (Supra), the choice of the Collector who had recommended the petitioner in the said case to be appointed as Lambardar was upheld. Therefore, in the present case also the Collector has recommended Avtar Singh (respondent No.4) to be the suitable candidate for appointment. As such there is no error of jurisdiction CWP No. 17770 of 2007 5 in the order that has been passed by the authorities. Even otherwise the fact that the petitioner has been observed to be an agent of RR Sales and, therefore, not suitable for appointment in the facts and circumstances would not warrant any interference by this Court. The contention that the petitioner in the partnership deed (Annexure P5) is only a sleeping partner of 30% share is also not of much significance. It may be noticed that the partnership deed (Annexure P5) is not shown to be a registered partnership deed and is not shown to be on stamp papers. Therefore, not much reliance can be placed on the said partnership. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE July 7, 2009 amit