IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.724 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 20.04.2011 Amarjit Singh …..Appellant versus The Financial Commissioner Revenue Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Ms.Naiya Gill, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) In this appeal, dispute is with regard to an appointment to the post of Lambardar of village Baunkar Gujran, tehsil and district Ludhiana. As per facts on record, to fill up a vacancy of Lambardar in the village, applications were invited. Appellant and respondent No.4 were the contesting candidates. Taking note of the recommendation made by the lower revenue staff in favour of respondent No.4, the Collector, after discussing comparative merits of the candidates, appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village in the year 2006. Since then, respondent No.4 is working against that post. Appellant failed in appeal. His revision was also dismissed. Learned Single Judge dismissed CWP No.16502 of 2009 filed by him on 9.2.2011, by observing as under:- LPA No.724 of 2011(O&M) “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. 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, 2 LPA No.724 of 2011(O&M) 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.” We feel that the finding given is perfectly justified. The Collector is the best judge to appoint a Lambardar and his choice is to be interfered with only if there is factual/ legal defect in it and not otherwise. In the present case, no such defect has been indicated. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 20.04.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 3