CWP No. 368 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 368 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.3.2009 Harmanpreet Singh ...petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner Appeals, Punjab and others ...respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Sherry K. Singhla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G, Punjab for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Tarun Vashist, Advocate for respondent No.4. RANJIT SINGH J. C.M. No. 4909 of 2009 Prayer is for placing on record certain documents. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of. CWP No. 368 of 2007 Jaswant Singh was a Lambardar of the village Khema Khera who died on 13.6.1993. Process to appoint new Lambardar at his place was accordingly initiated. Tehsildar invited applications after effecting proclamation. The petitioner as well as respondent No.4 and some other persons applied for being appointed as Lambardar. The candidature of all the persons were verified and Tehsildar, Malout recommended the name of respondent. Sub Divisional Officer, however, after hearing the parties and pursuing the CWP No. 368 of 2007 2 material recommended the name of the petitioner. District Collector accordingly appointed the petitioner as Lambardar after considering the merits and suitability of all the candidates who had applied. This happened on 10.10.1995. Respondent No.4 impugned this order by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division. The Commissioner thereafter remanded the case back to the Collector for deciding afresh with the direction to him to ascertain whether the allegation regarding illegal occupation of Panchayat land by the petitioner would affect his candidature or not. The Collector after conducting an inquiry found that petitioner was suitable for the appointment of Lambardar and again appointed him. This was also impugned by respondent No.4 before the Commissioner on 28.10.1999. The Commissioner again remanded the case back to the District Collector to ascertain the allegation concerning encroachment of a panchayat land and further directed the Collector to hold an inquiry whether the petitioner was in illegal possession of any panchayat land or not. This time when the case was remanded, the Collector directed the SDM, Malout to hold an inquiry in this regard. Sub Divisional Magistrate after inquiry still recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment as Lambardar. He also found that the father of the petitioner in fact was in possession of a land which was stated to be of a panchayat. Finding further is that this land had been in fact exchanged with the land of the panchayat. This time when the matter went before the Collector, he appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar. The view taken by him is that the father of the petitioner is in illegal possession of the CWP No. 368 of 2007 3 panchayat land and this will be a disqualification for the petitioner he being his son for appointment as a Lambardar of the village. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, which was dismissed. Financial Commissioner also rejected the revision filed by him. That is how he has filed the present writ petition before this Court. Counsel for the petitioner by referring to an inquiry held by the SDM, would urge that the petitioner being a son could not be held incurring disqualification, if his father was found to be in illegal possession of any land of the panchayat. The reasoning given by the authorities and upheld in a revision that the petitioner being son would incur a disqualification for being appointed as Lambardar on the ground that his father was in illegal possession of panchayat land, in my view, would be perverse. The petitioner being the son of a person could not be held disqualified for the act of his father. Even otherwise, the Sub Divisional Magistrate had noticed that the petitioner was staying separately with his mother who was divorced by the father. This apart, mere fact that father of the petitioner even if so in illegal possession of panchyat land would not make the petitioner ineligible. View taken by the authorities on this ground certainly cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The order appointing respondent No.4 is set aside. Earlier order passed by the Collector whereby the petitioner had been appointed Lambardar isupheld. To be fair to the counsel for the respondent, he has drawn my attention to a case of Ram Raji versus The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others 2007 (1) LAR 547 to say that CWP No. 368 of 2007 4 the choice of the Collector is required to be honoured and accordingly contends that once the Collector had exercised his choice in favour of the respondent this should not be interfered with. Even in this judgment the view taken is that the choice of the Collector for appointment of a Lambardar, is not to be interfered with, unless the same is perverse in law and facts. It is specifically found that the view taken by the Collector in appointing the respondent as Lambardar and reasons for which the petition was ignored suffers from perversity and such cannot be sustained. Collector had earlier appointed the petitioner as Lambardar on two occasions but the same was interfered with only to find out if the petitioner was in any unauthorised possession of Panchayat land. Though the petitioner was not found in any unauthorised possession of land still his appointment was set aside on the ground that his father is in unauthorised possession of land. It can be urged that the view earlier expressed by the Collector in appointing the petitioner twice should not have been interfered with. Even there is a doubt if the father of the petitioner is in unauthorised possession of land. The view taken by the authorities in upsetting the appointment of the petitioner and appointing respondent No. 4 instead as such is clearly unsustainable. The present writ petition is accordingly allowed. March 19, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE