IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1743 of 2010 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 03.03.2011 Roop Singh .... APPELLANT Versus The Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.4. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. 1. Appellant Roop Singh has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 8.11.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby while allowing the writ petition (CWP No. 20070 of 2009), filed by Jalaur Singh (respondent No.4 herein), appointment of the appellant as Lambardar of village Manuke, District Ludhiana, has been set aside and the matter has been remitted to the Collector to decide the same afresh within a period of three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that after the death of Nachhatar Singh, Lambardar of village Manuke, proceedings for filling up the vacant LPA No. 1743 of 2010 -2- post of Lambardar were initiated at the instance of the Collector, Ludhiana. The proclamation was conducted in the village for inviting applications of the interested persons. In pursuance of the same, 11 applications were received, out of which 4 applications were withdrawn by the candidates in favour of one candidate, namely Joginder Singh, who was son of the deceased Lambardar, whereas application of one candidate was consigned due to his non-appearance before Tehsildar, Jagraon. The applications of 6 candidates were got verified from the police. One of the candidates was found to be involved in a criminal case, whereas the character of the remaining 5 candidates, including the appellant and respondent No.4, was found to be good. They were asked to submit their statement/evidence before Tehsildar, Jagraon, who after hearing all the candidates recommended the name of Joginder Singh son of the deceased Lambardar and forwarded the same to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon. The SDM, Jagraon, after considering the merits and de-merits of all the candidates and providing them an opportunity of hearing, recommended the name of the appellant for his appointment as Lambardar of the village. The Collector, Ludhiana, after taking into consideration the entire evidence/ material, placed by the candidates before the Tehsildar and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, providing them an opportunity of hearing and considering the merits and de-merits of all the candidates, appointed the appellant as Lambardar of the village, vide his order dated 27.11.2007 (Annexure P-1), while making the following observations :- LPA No. 1743 of 2010 -3- “I have heard the arguments of counsels for candidate Roop Singh, Joginder Singh, Jalour Singh and Pal Singh. The file which has been received from the lower court has been perused minutely. After perusing the entire record, I consider Roop Singh son of Anokh Singh to be most suitable candidate for Lambardar because : (i) Respectable of village including Ex-Sarpanch, Lambardar and Panch has recommended this name for appointing him as Lambardar (ii) Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon has also recommended the name of Roop Singh for post of Lambardar. Roop Singh candidate is more educated than Joginder Singh candidate and he owns more land. As far as the candidature of other candidature are concerned, the Panchayat of the village has passed the resolution against Joginder Singh for not appointing Joginder Singh as Lambardar (iii) Joginder Singh can not be given any preference being son of deceased Lambardar because Joginder Singh is Fifth class pass whereas Roop Singh is Middle class pass (iv) There is police report against Pal Singh candidate for not appointing Pal Singh as Lambardar because Police cases are pending against him (v) Respectable persons of the village and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon has also recommended the name of Roop Singh for the post of Lambardar. I agree with the report of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon.” 3. Out of the unsuccessful candidates, only respondent No.4 Jalaur Singh filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, against the order of the Collector, Patiala. The Divisional Commissioner, after considering the merits and de-merits of the candidates and the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties, vide his order dated LPA No. 1743 of 2010 -4- 11.6.2008 (Annexure P-2), dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Collector, appointing the appellant as Lambardar of the village, while observing as under : “I have heard both the parties and have also gone through the record placed on file. Perusal of the record shows that the respondent is more meritorious candidate than the appellant. The AC Ist Grade also recommended the candidature of the respondent whereas none of the lower revenue officers had recommended the candidature of the appellant. The perusal of the chart of merits de-merits of the contesting candidates shows that the respondent is more educated than the appellant. The candidature of the respondent has been recommended by the Ex Sarpanch, Panch and other respectable of the village. It is also settled law that the choice of the Distt. Collector need not be disturbed unless and until it suffers from patent illegality or irregularity. The Distt. Collector has rightly appointed the respondent as Lambardar by way of following the prescribed procedure.” 4. Still feeling dis-satisfied, respondent No.4 Jalaur Singh challenged the aforesaid order before the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab, by filing a revision petition. The Financial Commissioner, after also considering the merits and de-merits of the appellant as well as respondent No.4, vide her order dated 7.7.2009 (Annexure P-3), dismissed the revision petition, after coming to the following conclusion : “I have carefully gone through revision petition as well as orders recorded by the lower courts. I am of the considered view that order of the Collector and Commissioner are well LPA No. 1743 of 2010 -5- reasoned and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Collector appointed the respondent as Lambardar after evaluating the inter-se merit of both the candidates. The name of the respondent Roop Singh was recommended by SDM also. It is well settled law that the choice of the Collector is to be honoured. I do not find any reason to differ with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.” 5. Dis-satisfied with the orders, passed by the revenue authorities, respondent No.4 Jalaur Singh, challenged all the aforesaid three orders of the revenue authorities, appointing the appellant as Lambardar of the village, by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 20070 of 2009 in this Court. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned order dated 8.11.2010, while making the following observations, has allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Collector, appointing the appellant as Lambardar of the village, as well as the orders of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, affirming the said order, and remitted the matter to the Collector to decide the same afresh in accordance with law, within a period of three months : “A perusal of the above extract reveals that the petitioner Jalaur Singh's merits have not been considered while selecting respondent No.4. The Collector was required to record reasons, howsoever brief, for rejecting the candidature of each candidate. The Commissioner made a fleeting reference to the merits of the petitioner but thereafter committed the same error as committed by the Collector. The Financial Commissioner went a step further and passed an order in general terms, LPA No. 1743 of 2010 -6- affirming the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner.” Against the said order, the instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. 6. After notice, we have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order as well as the orders, passed by the revenue authorities. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in law as well as facts, while setting aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities, appointing the appellant as Lambardar of the village. The only reason given by the learned Single Judge that the claim of respondent No.4 Jalaur Singh was not considered, while appointing the appellant as Lambardar of the village, is factually incorrect. According to the learned counsel, not only respondent No.4 was heard by the Collector, but every opportunity was provided to him to lead evidence before the authorities in support of his claim for his appointment as Lambardar. Learned counsel argued that it is well settled law that the High Court, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, should not interfere in the choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar, particularly when the Collector's order has been affirmed by the appellate and the revisional authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). According to the learned counsel, in exceptional circumstances, where the order of appointing a person as Lambardar of the village is totally perverse or illegal, or in case the person appointed as LPA No. 1743 of 2010 -7- Lambardar is ineligible or dis-qualified for being appointed on the post, the High Court, in exercise of its power of judicial review, can set aside the order of the revenue authorities appointing a person as Lambardar. In the present case, there is no such illegality or perversity, ineligibility or disqualification, on the basis of which the appointment of the appellant as Lambardar by the revenue authorities, could have been set aside by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel further argued that the learned Single Judge has further erred in observing that the Financial Commissioner had passed the order in general terms, without considering the merits and de- merits of the candidates. According to the learned counsel, a perusal of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, not only shows that the written arguments submitted by the counsel for both the candidates were taken on record, but also the merits and de-merits of the candidates were taken into consideration, while upholding the orders, passed by the Collector and the Commissioner. Learned counsel further submits that from the day, the Collector passed the order appointing the appellant as Lambardar of the village, the appellant has been working as Lambardar of the village, to the satisfaction of the authorities. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside and the orders of the revenue authorities are to be restored. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4, while referring to the order of the Collector as well as the impugned order, passed LPA No. 1743 of 2010 -8- by the learned Single Judge, argued that the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the order of the Collector, which was wrongly affirmed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, as while appointing the appellant as Lambardar of the village, claim of respondent No.4 was not considered and his candidature was unreasonably rejected by the Collector. Thus, according to learned counsel, the learned Single Judge has been justified in setting aside the orders of the revenue authorities. 9. According to the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, undisputedly the Collector is the appointing authority of the Lambardar of a village. However, before considering the claims of various persons for appointment on the post of Lambardar, the Collector through Tehsildar and the Sub Divisional Magistrate gets applications invited and particulars of the applicants verified from the police and. then after providing opportunity to all the applicants to lead evidence in support of their claims gets the recommendations of both the authorities. Thereafter, the Collector considers their respective claims on the basis of their merits and de-merits. Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1908, enumerates certain factors which are required to be taken into consideration by the Collector for the purpose of appointing a person on the post of Lambardar. It is well settled that normally the choice of the Collector regarding the appointment of Lambardar should not be interfered until and unless there is grave error, illegality or perversity in the order of appointment. In this regard, reference can be made to the decisions of this Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Financial Commissioner LPA No. 1743 of 2010 -9- (Revenue), Punjab and others, 2009 (4) RCR (Civil) 345 and Anand Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2009 (4) RCR (Civil) 844. 10. In Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram and others, AIR 2009 SC 1761, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while setting aside the order of the High Court, whereby the order of the Collector, appointing appellant Mahavir Singh in that case on the post of Lambardar, was reversed, directed the Collector to restore the services of appellant Mahavir Singh, while making the following observations : “16. The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is basically concerned with the correctness of the decision making process and not the merits of the decision. It has not been found by the High Court that Collector in expressing his opinion as regards comparative merit of appellant vis-a-vis respondent No.1 committed an error in his decision making process. The principles of natural justice have been complied with. Procedure laid down in the Rules had also been complied with. It is also not correct to say, as has been contended by Mr. Mahajan that the Collector had not taken into consideration the services rendered by the respondent No.1 to the State. He did acknowledge that the respondent No.1 had rendered the services to the State as a member of the Armed Forces. The Collector also took into consideration that the views of the respectables of the village were in favour of appellant as also the fact that he had participated in the collection work of the village and helped the government officials at the time of their visit. He furthermore took into consideration the fact that the Naib Tehsildar, Hansi had also recommended his name. Even the Circle Revenue LPA No. 1743 of 2010 -10- Officer had recommended therefor. 17. It is, therefore, not a case where the finding of the Collector can be said to be perverse. It has also not been established that the said statutory authority while taking a decision failed to take into consideration the relevant factors or based its decision on extraneous considerations or on irrelevant factors not germane therefor.” 11. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of the Collector, appointing the appellant as Lambardar of the village, only on the ground that while passing the said order, merits of respondent No.4 were not considered and no specific reason for rejecting his candidature was recorded. Undisputedly, it was not the case of respondent No.4 before the learned Single Judge that the appellant was having any disqualification or incurred any ineligibility for appointment as Lambardar, or that before passing the order of appointment of Lambardar, he (respondent No.4) was not heard or was not provided full opportunity to put forward his claim. It was also not his case that while making appointment of the appellant as Lambardar of the village, the revenue authorities had committed any procedural irregularity. The only contention before the learned Single Judge, on which the order of the Collector has been set aside, was that the Collector, while appointing the appellant as Lambardar of the village, had not taken into consideration the merits of respondent No.4. A perusal of the orders of the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner clearly reveals that the aforesaid factual position, as claimed LPA No. 1743 of 2010 -11- by respondent No.4, is not correct. In the order, passed by the Collector, claims of all the candidates appearing before him were considered. The age and education of respondent No.4, his holdings in the village, and his other merits, as put forwarded by his counsel, were noticed and taken into consideration. Merely because in the concluding portion of the order of the Collector, name of respondent No.4 does not find mention, it cannot be said that his claim was not considered, particularly when his merits and de-merits were discussed in the order, though in the form of the contention of his counsel. The concluding portion of the order clearly indicates that the Collector, after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for all the candidates and minutely perusing the file received from the lower court, had taken the decision of appointing the appellant as Lambardar of the village. Not only the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, in appeal and revision, filed by respondent No.4, had again considered the merits and de-merits of the appellant as well as respondent No.4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that while taking the decision of appointing the appellant as Lambardar of the village, the Collector had not considered the merits of respondent No.4. While taking into consideration the age and education of the appellant, as well as the fact that name of the appellant was recommended by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and also strongly recommended by the respectable persons of the village, including the Ex-Sarpanch, Lambardar and Panch, the Collector had appointed the appellant as Lambardar of the village. Even otherwise, LPA No. 1743 of 2010 -12- admittedly, since the year 2007, the appellant is working as Lambardar to the satisfaction of the authorities without any complaint. In that situation, there was no justification for the learned Single Judge to set aside the orders of the revenue authorities, particularly when there was no illegality or perversity in the orders, passed by the revenue authorities. 12. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the impugned order, passed by the learned Single Judge, while arriving at the wrong conclusion that merits of respondent No.4 were not considered, does not appear to be factually correct, and the learned Single Judge has erred in law, while setting aside the orders of the revenue authorities. 13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 8.11.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 20070 of 2009, is set aside and the order dated 27.11.2007, passed by the Collector, is restored. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE March 03, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE