L.P.A. No.1677 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.1677 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 Sucha Singh …APPELLANT VERSUS The Financial Commissioner, Cooperation,Punjab,Chandigarh and others …RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- PRESENT: Mr.A.S. Randhawa, Advocate, for the appellant. … SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 4.8.2011 passed in CWP No.9897 of 2010, whereby the learned Single Judge while upholding the order dated 1.2.2005 passed by the Collector appointing Tarsem Singh (respondent No.4 herein) as Lambardar of the village, set aside the orders dated 19.8.2005 and 23.4.2010 passed by the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner, respectively, appointing the appellant as Lambardar of the village. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned order as well as the orders passed by the revenue authorities. It is well settled as held in Ujagar Singh Versus State of Punjab, L.P.A. No.1677 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 28 and Gurdial Singh Versus Iqbal Singh, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 283 that generally the choice of the Collector in appointing the Lambardar is final and not to be interfered except where the order discloses the lack of jurisdiction or an error of fact so as to render his order arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. In this case, the Collector after evaluating the comparative merits of the appellant as well as respondent No.4, appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village after coming to the conclusion that out of the two candidates `Tarsem Singh is more suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar because (i) he in age is younger. (ii) He is owner of more land. (iii) He is social worker. (iv) He has given donation to many organizations.' The said reasoned and speaking order was set aside by the Commissioner, as noticed by the learned Single Judge, only on the ground that the Collector has ignored the recommendation made by the lower revenue staff in favour of the appellant. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the Commissioner had also taken into consideration the comparative merits of the candidates while setting the order of the Collector. A perusal of the order dated 19.8.2005 passed by the Commissioner reveals that the Commissioner on comparative merits, came to the conclusion that `education wise both these candidates are equally placed and only in the case of land holding in the village, the respondent is having an edge over the appellant. However, the appellant holds sufficient landed property in the village to provide adequate security to the Government dues which are likely to be handed by the Lambardar.' The Commissioner had set aside the order while observing that the name of the appellant, who also remained Panch of the village L.P.A. No.1677 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Panchayat, was recommended by the Naib Tehsildar and SDM, Jalandhar, but the Collector while appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar had not recorded any reason to differ with those recommendations. Therefore, the order of the Collector was set aside. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the recommendation made by the lower revenue staff is not binding on the Collector, who is the appointing authority of Lambardar. Once the Commissioner came to the conclusion that education wise both the candidates are equally placed and only in the case of land holding in the village, respondent No.4 is having an edge over the appellant, there was no justification for the Commissioner to set aside the order of the Collector, merely on the ground that the name of respondent No.4 was not recommended by the lower revenue staff. During the course of arguments, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Ishwar Singh Versus Satbir Singh & Ors., 2009(9) SCC 392, where the order passed by the High Court setting aside the orders of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner and upholding the order of the Collector, was set aside. In that case, the High Court set aside the orders of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner while making comparative merits of both the candidates. In the facts of the said case, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the High Court should not have interfered with in the orders of the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner while considering their merits, particularly when there was nothing in the orders passed by the Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner that the choice of the Collector is perverse, violative or against the rules or procedure. In our L.P.A. No.1677 of 2011 (O&M) -4- opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said judgment is not applicable. In this case the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the orders of the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner after coming to the conclusion that the Commissioner apparently has interfered with the choice exercised by the Collector without any justification and valid reason. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 12, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE