CWP No.16973 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.16973 of 2008 Date of Decision: 7.7.2010 CWP No.16973 of 2008 Nar Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Financial Commissioner, (Revenue),Punjab and others ....Respondents CWP No.18538 of 2008 Mukhtiar Singh ....Petitioner Vs. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue),Punjab and others .....Respondents ... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab, for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent no.4. Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate for respondent no.5. ..... RAJIVE BHALLA, J This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.16973 and 18538 of 2008, as they are directed against the same order. The facts have been taken from CWP No.16973 of 2008. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 7.7.2006, 23.1.2008 and 7.8.2008, passed by the Collector, Bathinda, the Commissioner, Faridkot and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I),Punjab, respectively. CWP No.16973 of 2008 2 On the demise of the incumbent Lambardar, applications were invited for the post of Lambardar of Village Pakka KalanTehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda. The petitioner, respondents no.4 and 5 and others applied for this post. The Collector, Bathinda, vide his order dated 8.7.2003, appointed Boota Singh, respondent no.4 as the Lambardar. The Commissioner accepted an appeal filed by the petitioner and remanded the matter to the Collector. Boota Singh filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner against this order. The Financial Commissioner directed the appointment of Mukhtiar Singh as the Lambardar. Boota Singh filed CWP No.18808 of 2005. Vide order dated 2.5.2006, the writ petition was allowed, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner was set aside and the matter was remitted for a fresh decision. The dispute eventually came up for reconsideration before the Collector, Bathinda, who vide order dated 7.7.2006, directed the appointment of Boota Singh, as the Lambardar. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner was dismissed on 4.8.2006. A revision filed before the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed on 23.1.2008. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while rejecting his candidature, the petitioner's experience as the Sarbarah Lambardar has not been considered. Boota Singh could not be appointed, as he runs a jewellery shop in Bathinda and would, therefore, not be available to the residents of the village. It is also submitted that as Boota Singh faced a trial in a TADA case and though acquitted, he should not be appointed as the Lambardar. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner that he has encroached upon panchayat land and is a defaulter of a cooperative society are factually incorrect. CWP No.16973 of 2008 3 Counsel for Boota Singh, respondent no.4, submits that the Collector examined these facts and held that respondent no.4 is the best candidate. The findings recorded by the Collector have been affirmed by the appellate and the revisional authorities. In the absence of any perversity or illegality in the impugned orders, the present petition merits summary dismissal. Counsel for respondent no.5 submits that the entire process of selection should be quashed and the Collector should be directed to reconsider the matter as respondent no.5 has been wrongly ignored. The power to select and appoint a Lambardar, in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, vests with the Collector. The choice of the Collector is final except where it is demonstrably perverse, arbitrary or violative of any provision of law. The order passed by the Collector, selecting Boota Singh, as the Lambardar has been affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. The petitioner's assertion that his service as a Sarbarah Lambardar has not been considered, is factually incorrect and this apart disregards the fact that service as a Sarbarah Lambardar does not confer any preferential right to appointment. The petitioner, as held by the Collector and the revisional authority is a defaulter of the village cooperative society and resides in a house constructed by his father by encroaching upon panchayat land. An argument that as Boota Singh runs a jewellery shop in Bathinda, he would not be available in the village was considered and rejected, as Boota Singh is a bonafide resident of village Pakka Kalan. The allegation that Boota Singh should not be appointed, as he was involved in a case under TADA, cannot be accepted, as Boota Singh was honorably CWP No.16973 of 2008 4 acquitted in this case. I find no error, in the impugned order as to hold that the choice of the Collector is perverse, arbitrary or violative of any provision of law. In view of what has been stated herein above, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 7.7.2010 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE