IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.793 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 06.05.2011 Karnail Singh …..Appellant versus Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Revenue and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.C.M.Munjal, Advocate for the Appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against an order dated 21.4.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing CWP No.12074 of 2009, filed by respondent No.4. Heard. Dispute herein pertains to the appointment against the post of Lambardar in village Hansu Majra, tehsil Guhla, district Kaithal. To fill up that vacancy, applications were invited. Appellant and respondent No.4 were the contesting candidates. After taking note of the report, made by the lower revenue staff, the Collector appointed the appellant as a Lambardar of the village. Respondent No.4 went in appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner, by passing an order on 28.11.2008. Relevant contents of the order in appeal read thus:- “I have heard both the learned counsel and gone through the records carefully. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through the record, I am of the view that LPA No.793 of 2011(O&M) appellant is of 61 years and is matured person and his qualification is BA LLB. Respondent is of 38 years and 7th class pass. According to naksha Lambardari, appellant has six acres of land, whereas, the respondent has 9 acres 4 kanals of land. As per Naib Tehsildars Guhla’s report dated 29.11.2007 and Sub Divisional Officer, Guhla’s report dated 28.12.2007, appellant Dalel Singh had been Lambardar earlier and he submitted his resignation of his own. Appellant’s submitted affidavit against Karnail Singh on 14.8.2007 about his illegal possession. Collector directed on 1.2.2008 to Sub Divisional Officer to investigate upon the affidavit of appellant and submitted his report. On spot inspection by Sub Divisional Officer Guhla, he has placed on file page 575, according to which No.72 is gair mumkin kacha rasta which goes alongwith pacca road and goes to Dwarkapur, Punjab. There is no illegal possession of Karnail Singh son of Jagroop Singh, but on seeing the soil of land, it appears that possession has been left recently. Karnail Singh son of Jagroop Singh has land adjoining this number. Except this, Assistant Collector Ist Grade Guhla by his order dated 3.11.2007 in case No.320 of Gram Panchayat, Hansu Majra vs. Jagroop son of Bishan Ram under Punjab Village Common Land Regulation Act, 1961 under Section 7(2) has held the illegal possession of respondent’s father over the Gram Panchayat land and passed orders of ejectment against him. He was also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per acre per annum since 1990-91 till the possession is handed over. Appellant 2 LPA No.793 of 2011(O&M) Dalel Singh has made donations in Seva Samiti, Samdh Baba Darbar Puri, Shiv Shakti Durga Mandir, Dera Pacci Johri (Shiv Pouri), Shahidi Gurdwara Sahib, Shri Sanatan Dharam Mahavir Dal, Shri Krishan Gopal Gauseva Sadan Sabha like religious institutions and its record is available on page 247 to 253. According to facts on record, appellant is the ex- Sarpanch of village and had been Lambardar for four years of same village. It shows he has good reputation in village and he is experienced for the work of Lambardari also. But Collector ignored the facts on the file and appointed respondent as Lambardar on the place of Ex Lambardar, Budh Ram of village Hansu Majra. From the above said discussion, it is clear that appellant Dalel Singh is more suitable and eligible for the post of Lambardar in comparison to respondent Karnail Singh. According to me, Collector’s order is against rules and facts. In these circumstances, Collector’s orders are reversed and accepting appellant’s appeal is hereby accepted and he is appointing as Lambardar from general category in place of ex-lambardar Budh Ram of village Hansu Majra.” A detailed finding was given to say that when order was passed by the Collector, he has failed to appreciate the merits of respondent No.4. The appellant went in revision, which was allowed by the Financial Commissioner, only by stating that both the candidates have almost the similar qualifications. Nothing more was discussed. It was not considered as to why respondent No.4, who had earlier also worked as a Lambardar, is not fit for the post, despite his higher qualification and experience gained by him. Respondent No.4 came to this Court by filing CWP No.12074 of 3 LPA No.793 of 2011(O&M) 2009, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by taking note of higher qualification to the credit of respondent No.4 and also experience gained by him as a Lambardar. It is not in dispute that respondent No.4 was appointed as a Lambardar in the year 2004. Thereafter, in a very fair manner, in the year 2007, he tendered his resignation on a ground that on account of his family pressure, it will not be possible for him to do justice with his post. It has come on record that during that period, his father was seriously ill and he was looking after him. Above said fact clearly shows bona fide on the part of respondent No.4. It has also come on record that respondent No.4 has given donation many a times for good purposes. It was so noticed by the Commissioner in his order. It has also clear from record that there was an allegation of illegal possession of Panchayat land against the appellant. It is true that choice of the Collector, in appointing a Lambardar, is not to be interfered with, unless it is perverse in law and on facts. In the present case, the Collector committed an error by not giving preference to the overwhelming qualification of respondent No.4. In such a situation, interference in the order passed by the Collector was justified. It has rightly been done so by the Commissioner and upheld by the learned single Judge. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 06.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 4