IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No. 1013 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision:3rd June, 2011 Lachhman .......Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the appellant(s). 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Kamal Jeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 3. Heard counsel for the parties. The dispute in this appeal is with regard to an appointment against the post of Lambardar of Village Diwan Khera, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur. On occurring of a vacancy, applications were invited to file the same, the appellant and respondent no. 3 were the contesting Letters Patent Appeal No. 1013 of 2011(O&M) candidates. The District Collector, Ferozepur (for short, the Collector) vide order dated 31.10.2006 appointed the respondent No. 3 as Lambardar of the village. Thereafter, the appellant went in appeal. Vide order dated 30.04.2007 the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur accepted the same, order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the Collector was set aside and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. The Collector again, taking note of the comparative merits of the candidates, vide order dated 27.12.2007 the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Lambardar of the village Diwan Khera, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur. It was observed as under:- “I have given a carefully thought to the arguments advanced on behalf of both the contenting candidates and have also perused the record including the reports of all the revenue officers as also the remand order dated 30.04.2007 passed by the learned Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. All the lower Revenue Officers have unanimously recommended the name of Shri Chander Sheikhar candidates for appointment as Lambardar of this village. After hearing both the contesting candidates, I vide my order dated 31.10.2006 had also appointed Sh. Chander Sheikhar as Lambardar of this village as he considered more active and energetic being younger in age and her also possessed more educational qualifications. Besides this, he also owned 107 kanals 18 marlas of land which was sufficient to stand security for the government dues 2 Letters Patent Appeal No. 1013 of 2011(O&M) recoverable by a Lambardar. The learned commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, however, vide his remand order has observed that Shri Lachhman Dass candidate owned more land was the son of the deceased Lambardar and also acted his Sarbrah. So far as holding of more land is concerned, the land owned by Shri Lachhman Dass may be more but Shri Chander Sheika also owns 107 Kanals 18 marlas of land which is sufficient for the security of the Government dues recoverable by a Lambardar. So far as the experience gained by Shri Lachhman Dass as Sarbarah is concerned, it has been held by our Hon'ble High Court vide various rulings that such experience being a stop gap arrangement cannot be taken into consideration while appointing a regular Lambardar. So far as Shri Lachhman Dass being the son of the deceased Lambardar is concerned, the hereditary claim has been struck down by the higher Courts due to which the son of the deceased lambardar has not been given any preference if a better candidate is available in the field. In the light of the above discussion, I am still of the considered view that Shri Chander Sheikhar candidate is more suitable for appointment as Lambardar of this village as he is 9th class pass, being a young man of 35 years is more active and energetic and 3 Letters Patent Appeal No. 1013 of 2011(O&M) he also owns 107 kanals 18 marlas of land which is sufficient to stand security for the government dues recoverable by him as Lambardar. Besides this, his name has also been recommended by all the lower Revenue Officers and the definitely an edge over his rival candidate Shri Lachhman Dass. Therefore, I appoint Shri Chander Sheikar son of Shri Guran Ditta Mal as Lambardar of village Diwan Khera, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur in the vacancy fell vacant due to death of Shri Bula Ram, Lambardar. ” It was noted by the Collector that the respondent no. 3 is a better candidate. To say so, reference was made to the acceptability and respect gained by family of the respondent No. 3. Otherwise, also we feel that the comparative merits of both the candidates more or less are the same. As per established law, the Collector's order can be interfered only if it is wrong on facts and law but no such defect has been indicated in this case. It is apparent from the record that the appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 29.07.2009. However, the Financial Commissioner Appeals-I, Punjab, Chandigarh vide order dated 20.10.2009 reversed the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner and instead appointed the appellant as Lambardar of the village Diwan Khera. Respondent No. 3 came to this Court by CWP No. 17801 of 2009 which was allowed by the learned Single judge by observing as under:- “I have considered the contention of 4 Letters Patent Appeal No. 1013 of 2011(O&M) learned counsel for the petitioner. The Financial Commissioner in the impugned order has taken into account the hereditary claim of the private respondent on the premise that other factors are equal between the petitioner and the respondent. The other ground on which the revision has been allowed, is that the respondent owns more land. I have considered the comparative merit of the petitioner with the respondent in the context of the orders passed by the authorities under the Land Revenue Act. Very important fact has been ignored by the Financial Commissioner while considering the facts and circumstances of the case viz. popularity and influence of the petitioner. The Collector while appointing the petitioner, has taken into account the fact that father of the petitioner was Sarpanch of the village for three terms. It indicates popularity of the family of the petitioner and strength and importance in the community. Other than that, the petitioner is more educated than respondent No.3. I also uphold the order passed by the Collector, on the ground that the petitioner owns sufficient land to stand security for the Government dues that would be recoverable by him as a Lambardar. The petitioner is younger in age as compared to the respondent. The order having been passed by the Collector on these relevant premises has 5 Letters Patent Appeal No. 1013 of 2011(O&M) been upheld by the Commissioner in appellate jurisdiction. In such circumstances, no interference, at the instance of Revisional Authority, was called for. The comparative merit of the petitioner with the respondent is not equal. The petitioner has an edge over the respondent, having higher education, being owner of more land and influence of the family, as noted above. In such circumstances, benefit of hereditary claim could not have been given to respondent No. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed, order Annexure P-5 dated 20.10.2009, passed by Financial Commissioner is hereby quashed.” We feel that order passed is justified. No disqualification has been attributed to the respondent No. 3. The comparative merits of both the candidates, more or less, are the same as has been observed in the earlier part of this order. No legal infirmity has been shown in the orders passed by the Collector or the Commissioner. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. [JASBIR SINGH] JUDGE [RAKESH KUMAR GARG] JUDGE 3rd June, 2011 Shivani Kaushik 6