Civil Writ Petition No.20039 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.20039 of 2011 Date of Decision:-31.10.2011 Mewa Singh ...Petitioner Versus The Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Tarunveer Vashist, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sachin Sharma, Advocate for the caveator-respondent No.3. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The compendium of the facts, which requires to be noticed 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 Mastan Singh, the post of Lambardar of village Devi Nagar alias Malkpur, Tehsil Payal, Distt.Ludhiana, had fallen vacant. To begin with, 12 persons applied for the indicated post. Subsequently, since all other persons withdrew their candidatures, so only, Mewa Singh son of Mastan Singh (petitioner) & Rajinder Singh son of Jarnail Singh (respondent No.3) contested and lodged their respective claims for the 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 District Collector (respondent No.2) ignored the candidature of the petitioner and appointed Rajinder Singh (respondent No.3) as Lambardar of the village, by virtue of order dated 10.9.2010 (Annexure P7). 3. Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P7), the petitioner filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division (respondent No.1), by way of impugned order dated 13.7.2011 (Annexure Civil Writ Petition No.20039 of 2011 -2- P8). 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders (Annexures P7 & P8) and preferred the instant writ petition, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition. 6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that the petitioner is more meritorious candidate than respondent No.3 and since the District Collector and the Divisional Commissioner have wrongly ignored his (petitioner) claim, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P7 & P8) deserve to be set aside, lacks merit. 7. As is evident from the record that, having considered the respective pros and cons of the candidature of the candidates and after following the due procedure, as envisaged under the provisions of the Act and relevant Rules, the District Collector appointed respondent No.3 on the post of Lambardar. 8. Not only that, the order/choice of the District Collector was confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, by virtue of impugned order (Annexure P8), which, in substance, is (Para 4) as under:- “4. I have heard both the counsels and have also gone through the record of the lower court. In my opinion, the Collector has rightly appointed the respondent as Lambardar as he is younger in age and more educated than the appellant. Furthermore, this court has already remanded the case twice vide orders dated 12.2.2008 and 15.4.2010 and every time the present respondent has been appointed as Lambardar by the District Collector. Moreover, the appellant has failed to point out any demerit of the appointed candidate which can be considered against him and it is well settled law that the choice of District Collector need not be interfered unless it is suffering from some patent illegality. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the orders dated 10.9.2010 passed by District Collector, Ludhiana. So, the appeal filed in this case has no merits and the same is hereby rejected.” 9. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that the Collector is the appointing authority of the Lambardar. The appointment of Lambardar is administrative function and is prerogative of the District Collector, being In-charge Civil Writ Petition No.20039 of 2011 -3- of the Administration. It is the duty of the Collector to appoint such persons in the office of Lambardar, who are eligible and competent to carry out the duties efficiently. He is in an advantageous position to examine the merits and demerits of the candidates. The choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of village Lambardar should not normally be interfered with, unless the Collector has taken a perverse view and has not exercised his choice judiciously. 10. 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 of the authorities below are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant context. 11. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the impugned orders. All other celebrated arguments, now sought to be urged on his behalf in this relevant direction, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the authorities below. 12. Meaning thereby, the authorities below 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 P7 & P8) 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 parties. 14. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 31.10.2011 Judge AS