IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 2192 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 02, 2011 Jaspal Singh …Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. Harchand Singh Batth, Advocate, for the Appellant. Paramjeet Singh, J. Present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against order dated 24.08.2011 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition of the appellant has been dismissed, and order dated 14.06.2011 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala and order dated 14.09.2010 (Annexure P/4) passed by the District Collector, Patiala, whereby respondent NO.5 – Harbhajan Singh has been appointed as Lambardar of village Bhilowal, Tehsil Nabha, district Patiala, have been upheld. The brief facts of the case are that Sukhdev Singh, Lambardar of the Village Bhilowal moved an application on 01.01.2008 requesting the District Collector, Patiala, that he had become old and is handicapped, as such, is not in a position to perform the duties of Lambardar and requested that his resignation LPA No.2192 of 2011 be accepted, which was subsequently accepted and process for appointment of new Lambardar in his place in the village was initiated. The proclamation in the village was made for inviting applications for the post of Lambardar. Initially, respondent No.5 – Harbhajan Singh applied and was recommended for the post of Lambardar. Before the Collector, objections were raised by Jaspal Singh, present appellant, who could not apply for the post of Lambardar of the village Bhilowal at that point of time. The Collector accepted the objections of Jaspal Singh (appellant). The Collector vide order dated 19.05.2009 directed the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to make proclamation afresh inviting applications for the post of Lambardar, became vacant due to the resignation of Sukhdev Singh. Thereafter, fresh proclamation was made by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Nabha. In response to that, the appellant and respondent No.5 submitted their applications. Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector IInd Grade recommended the name of Harbhajan Singh (respondent No.5) for the post of Lambardar of the said village and forwarded his name to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade recommended the name of the appellant for the post of Lambardar. However, the District Collector did not agree with the findings of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and appointed Harbhajan Singh (respondent No.5) as Lambardar of the village vide order dated 14.09.2010 (Annexure P/4). The relevant part of the order is as under:- “3. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for both the candidates and have carefully perused the record on the 2 LPA No.2192 of 2011 file. I find that Harbhajan Singh being the son of a previous Lambardar knows the job. He is mature and has been recommended by the Tehsildar (–cum – Assisant Collector Grade-II, Nabha vide his report dated 8.3.2010). Since land revenue has been abolished, holding more land has not remained an important issue today. Furthermore, I also agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for Harbhajan Singh that Jaspal Singh, the other candidate, is already representing his village and fellow cultivators as a Director of the Co-operative society. Concentrating all the responsibilities in one hand is not a good thing. It will also effect his efficiency in the timely discharge of duties as village Lambardar. As both the candidates are almost equal in all aspects, the consideration of heredity claims gives a clear edge to Harbhajan Singh whose father remain Lambardar for a long time. In the back-drop of this discussion of the case, I consider Harbhajan Singh to be a fit and better candidate for the post of Lambardar and accordingly appoint him as such of village Bhillowal, Tehsil Nabha, Sanad be issued.” The appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the Commissioner. The appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No. 15538 of 2011, that too has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 24.08.2011. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned order, as well as orders of the Divisional Commissioner and the District Collector. 3 LPA No.2192 of 2011 We do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order of the learned Single Judge, as well as, orders of the Collector and the Commissioner. The choice of the Collector cannot be lightly set aside. The appellant is 39 years old, his qualification is 6th standard and owns 8 acres of land; whereas, respondent No.5 is 45 years old, his qualification is 7th Class and owns 7 acres of land. Besides this, respondent No.5 is the son of the previous Lambardar Sukhdev Singh, who has resigned. Taking all the facts into account, the Collector has rightly came to the conclusion that he is a better candidate than the appellant. Preference as per rule is to be given to the son of the previous Lambardar, if other merits are equal. We are of the view that the choice of the Collector, affirmed by the Commissioner and the learned Single Judge is based on appreciation of evidence and comparative merit, does not call for interference by this Court. As such, we do not find any merit in this Letters Patent Appeal. Dismissed in limine. ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE December 02, 2011 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkd JUDGE 4