C.W.P.No.20180 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.20180 of 2011 Date of Decision:-2.11.2011 Wazir Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that, in the wake of death of Baksha Ram, the post of Lambardar of village Aurangnagar, Tehsil Bawani Khera, Distt.Bhiwani, had fallen vacant. To begin with, five candidates, namely, Virender Singh son of Baksha Ram, Om Parkash son of Bhana Ram (respondent No.6), Wazir Singh son of Kishan Lal (petitioner), Vinod Kumar son of Ram Narayan and Narender Kumar son of Vijay Singh applied and lodged their respective claims. Subsequently, Kapoor Singh son of Ram Karan (respondent No.5) has also applied for the indicated post of Lambardar. 2. Having considered the respective merits and de-merits of the candidates and after following the due procedure, as contemplated under the provisions of The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and the relevant Rules”), the Collector (respondent No.3) appointed Om Parkash (respondent No.6) as Lambardar of the village, by virtue of order dated 13.6.2007 (Annexure P2). 3. Dissatisfied with the order (Annexure P2), petitioner Wazir Singh and Virender Kumar son of Baksha Ram filed their respective appeals, which were C.W.P.No.20180 of 2011 -2- accepted and the matter was remitted back by the Commissioner, Hisar Division (respondent No.2), by way of order dated 14.11.2008 (Annexure P3). 4. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P3), Wazir Singh (petitioner), Om Parkash (respondent No.6) and Varender Kumar son of Baksha Ram filed their respective revision petitions, which were dismissed as well, by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.1), by means of impugned order dated 15.7.2011 (Annexure P4). 5. The appointee candidate (by Collector) Om Parkash and Virender Kumar have not challenged the order (Annexure P4), however, petitioner Wazir Singh still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P2 to P4), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition. 7. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner is more meritorious candidate than respondent No.6, so, the Collector ought to have appointed him as Lambardar and the Commissioner & Financial Commissioner further committed a legal mistake in remanding the case, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 8. As is evident from the record that, in the wake of acceptance of appeals filed by the petitioner, the Commissioner remitted the case, through the medium of order (Annexure P3), the operative part of which is (para 6) as under:- “6. Arguments made by all the parties have been heard and available record has been perused. This post has fallen vacant due to the death of general category Nambardar Baksha Ram of Aurangnagar. The appellant Wazir Singh is only 7th class pass. Appellant Virender Kumar is a resident of village Hajampur, Tehsil Hansi and respondent Om Parkash is resident of village Paposa, Tehsil Bawani Khera. Village Aurangnagar is at a distance of 6 Kms. and 3 Kms from Hajampur and Paposa. According to the rulings 1980 PLJ 140, 2002(1) PLJ 73, C.W.P.No.20180 of 2011 -3- 1981 PLJ 20, LJR 2008(1) 812, relied upon by the counsel for appellant Wazir Singh, that candidate from the same village should be made Nambardar, the post of which village becomes vacant. The presence of the Nambardar in the village is mandatory. The appellant Virender Kumar is a resident of village Hajampur, Tehsil Hansi, Distt.Hisar. So, it is clear that appellant Virender Kumar and respondent Om Parkash are residents of other village, whereas appellant Wazir Singh is only 7th class pass. Out of these three candidates no candidate is suitable for the post of Nambardar. Therefore, the order dated 13.06.2007 of Collector Bhiwani is not justified and the same is hereby set aside and it is ordered that in order to fill up the vacant post of Nambardar, public announcement be made again in the village and fresh proceedings be initiated.” 9. Not only that, the appellate order was duly upheld by the Financial Commissioner. It is not a matter of dispute that the name of petitioner, being 7th class passed, was not recommended by the Collector, whereas Virender Kumar candidate is a resident of other village Hajampur and appointee Om Parkash (respondent No.6) is a resident of different village Paposa, whereas the post of Lambardar of village Aurangnagar was to be filled. Their villages are at quite distance from village Aurangnagar. 10. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the Lambardar is a village officer as defined under section 3(11) of the Act and is a link between the Government functionaries and the village peasants. It is age old institution and is an integral & significant part of revenue system. Therefore, it would always be in the interest of justice and administration and it is the mandatory duty of the Collector to appoint such person in the office of Lambardar, who is otherwise eligible and competent to carry out the duties efficiently. Keeping in view the importance of the integral institution of Lambardar, to me, the Commissioner & Financial Commissioner have rightly remanded the case back to Collector for fresh appointment of Lambardar in this connection. 11. At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned orders (Annexures P3 & P4) are illegal and would C.W.P.No.20180 of 2011 -4- invite any interference in this relevant behalf. 12. Meaning thereby, the Commissioner & Financial Commissioner have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P3 & P4) deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner. 14. In the light of aforementioned reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of subsequent proceedings, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. 15. Needless to mention here, that nothing recorded herein above would reflect, in any manner, on the merits of the case, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 2.11.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No