Civil Writ Petition No.19123 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19123 of 2011 Date of Decision:13.10.2011 Gurmukh Singh ......Petitioner Versus Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Jagjit Singh Lalli, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that, in the wake of resignation of Harinder Singh, the post of Lambardar of Village Mangli Nichi, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, had fallen vacant. After completion of all the formalities for the appointment of Lambardar, as envisaged under The Punjab Land Revenue Act and Rules framed thereunder(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and Relevant Rules”), Gurmukh Singh son of Ajit Singh(petitioner) and Major Singh son of Prem Singh(respondent No.3) lodged their respective claims and ultimately contested for the abovesaid post. 2. After considering the merits and demerits of both the candidates, the Collector found Major Singh(respondent No.3) more suitable candidate and appointed him on the indicated post of Lambardar of the village, by virtue of impugned order dated 23.04.2011(Annexure P-2). 3. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-2) of the Collector, the Civil Writ Petition No.19123 of 2011 2 petitioner filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, by means of impugned order dated 07.06.2011(Annexure P-4). 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders (Annexures P-2 and P-4) and preferred the present civil writ petition, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this respect. 6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the petitioner is more meritorious and suitable candidate, but the Collector committed a mistake in appointing respondent No.3 as Lambardar of the village, lacks merit. 7. As is evident from the record that, the Field Officer(Tehsildar Ludhiana) by way of his report dated 04.01.2010(Annexure P-1) recommended the name of Major Singh(respondent No.3). Agreeing with the report of the Tehsildar, the Sub Divisional Officer(Civil) also recommended the name of Major Singh for appointment to the post of Lambardar of the village. 8. Having completed all the codal formalities and taking into consideration the respective pros and cons of the candidates, the Collector came to the definite conclusion that, since, respondent No.3 is more meritorious and suitable candidate, so, he appointed him as Lambardar, through the medium of impugned order dated 23.04.2011(Annexure P-2), the operative part of which is as under:- “After hearing the arguments of counsels for the candidates and from documents produced on the file, these facts have come to light that candidate Major Singh lives in same Patti, to which this Lambardari belongs, whereas other candidate lives on other Patti of the village. Apart from this, he has more land than the other candidate and he forever remains in village. Tehsildar Ludhiana(East) and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana(East) has recommended his name for appointment as Civil Writ Petition No.19123 of 2011 3 Lambardar. Keeping in view the above facts, I have arrived at a conclusion that Major Singh candidate is much suitable candidate than other candidate for the appointment as Lambardar. As such, Sh.Major Singh candidate son of Sh.Prem Singh is hereby appointed as new Lambardar of Village Mangli Nichi, Tehsil Ludhiana(East), District Ludhiana, against the post fell vacant on the resignation of Sh.Harinder Singh.” 9. Moreover, 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 of the Administration. He is in 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, specially when it is upheld by the Commissioner, unless the Collector has taken a perverse view and has not exercised his choice judiciously. In the instant case, the Collector has rightly appointed respondent No.3 as Lambardar of the village. 10. Not only that, the choice of the Collector was further upheld by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, vide impugned order dated 07.06.2011(Annexure P-4). 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal violation or material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned orders are illegal and would invite any interference by this Court in this context. 12. Meaning thereby, the authorities below have recorded the cogent grounds in the impugned orders in this relevant behalf. Such orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining Civil Writ Petition No.19123 of 2011 4 circumstances of the case. 13. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. October 13, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE