IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.16502 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 9, 2011 AMARJEET SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. GS Attariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This Civil Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 15.9.2006 (Annexure P-1), passed by the District Collector, Ludhiana, order dated 18.9.2007 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, and order dated 18.8.2009 (Annexure P-12), passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab. 2 Vide order (Annexure P-1), respondent No.4-Prem Chand son of Sibhu Ram was appointed as Lambardar for Village Banukar Gujran, Tehsil Ludhiana (East), District Ludhiana. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner have been dismissed vide orders, Annexures P-9 and P-12, Civil Writ Petition No.16502 of 2009 2 respectively. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a totally illiterate person has been appointed as Lambardar. The comparative merit, as given out in para-17 of the petition, has been totally ignored. It has been projected that respondent No.4 is in unauthorised possession of Panchayat land and, therefore, was ineligible even to apply for the post. 4 I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5 There is no adjudication on the issue that respondent No.4 is in unauthorised possession of land. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not file any application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, although the petitioner had the locus standi to file such an application for ejectment of respondent No.4 from the alleged unauthorised occupation. 6 Considering the comparative merit, the Collector appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar. Rather, in the order passed by the Collector, it finds mention that “So far as Amarjit Singh candidate is concerned, he had given a statement on 7.5.2003 to withdraw his application and to appoint Prem Chand, candidate (respondent No.4) as Nambardar”. It has also been mentioned that Amarjit Singh (petitioner) was removed from the post of Sarpanch in view of allegations of embezzlement. In this regard, reference to order dated 4.6.2004, passed by Director, Panchayats, Punjab, has been made. There is also a reference to pendency of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure, for preparing fake documents. Civil Writ Petition No.16502 of 2009 3 7 Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the court towards order (Annexure P-2), passed by Director- cum-Special Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab (exercising the powers of Government under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994), to say that the appeal of the petitioner was accepted and, therefore, the ground of embezzlement cannot be taken into account, however, I find that on a collective consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No.4 was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector. It is settled law that the District Collector, being the revenue officer at the district level, is the best person to take a decision in regard to appointment of Lambardar because he is the person who is required to take work from such persons. No interference in such orders is to be made unless perversity in passing the orders is shown. The Collector, in the present case, has considered the relevant parameters and has passed orders that are based on relevant facts. 8 In such circumstances, I find no legal infirmity in the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner in upholding the order passed by the District Collector. 9 No ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 10 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. February 9, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?