Civil Writ Petition No.22675 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22675 of 2011 Date of Decision:07.12.2011 Surender Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Vivek K.Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Having completed all the codal formalities, 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”) and compared the respective merits and demerits of the candidates, the Collector appointed Sajjan Singh(respondent No.5) as Lambardar of the Village Kadama, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani, by way of impugned order dated 13.07.2010(Annexure P-1). 2. Dissatisfied with the order(Annexure P-1), petitioner-Surender Singh filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Commissioner, Hisar Division(respondent No.2), by means of impugned order dated 10.09.2010 (Annexure P-3). 3. Aggrieved by the orders(Annexures P-1 and P-3), the petitioner and Ram Niwas(respondent No.6) filed their respective revision petitions, which were also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana(respondent No.1), through the medium of impugned order dated 29.08.2011(Annexure P-6). 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present Civil Writ Petition No.22675 of 2011 2 writ petition, challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P-1, P-3 and P-6), 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 help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context. 6. However, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the petitioner was more meritorious than respondent No.5, so, the authorities below committed a legal mistake, to appoint him(respondent No.5) on the indicated post of Lambardar, lacks merit. 7. What cannot possibly be disputed here is 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 of the Administration. He is in an advantageous position to examine the merits and demerits of the candidates. Therefore, it would always be in the interest of justice & administration and it is the 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. 8. As is evident from the record that, respondent No.5 is more educated and owns more land than the petitioner. He is a sitting Panch of the Gram Panchayat and his grand-father remained Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat. The argument of the learned counsel that, since respondent No.5 is in illegal possession, as per demarcation report(Annexure P-4), so, he is not eligible to be appointed as a Lambardar, is neither tenable nor the observations of this Court in case Phool Kumar Versus State of Haryana, 2010(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 497, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, nor the subsequent alleged vague demarcation report dated 25.12.2010(Annexure P-4) without any basis,is sufficient to ignore his(respondent No.5) candidature in this respect, particularly when the Collector has recorded a finding of fact that he(respondent No.5) is not having any Civil Writ Petition No.22675 of 2011 3 possession over the Gram Panchayat land. Above all, he is more meritorious in every respect than the petitioner. 9. Having considered the respective pros and cons of the candidates, the Collector appointed respondent No.5 as Lambardar, by virtue of impugned order dated 13.07.2010(Annexure P-1), which in substance is as under:- “After hearing all the three parties and after going through the comparison chart of the candidates, I have come to the conclusion that Sh.Sajjan Singh, candidate is better than the other two candidates in every respect. This candidate is more qualified than the other candidates and he is having more land in his name. He is sitting Panch of the Village. His grandfather remained Sarpanch of the Village. The candidate is not having any possession over the Panchayat land and he takes part in the social activities very much. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade has recommended this candidate for the post of Lambardar. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and treating Sh.Sajjan Singh son of Ram Chander (sic.) candidate as able candidate, he is ordered to be appointed as Lambardar against the post vacated by Sh.Ram deceased Lambardar. The orders of Lambardari be issued.” 10. Possibly, it cannot be denied that it is now well-settled proposition of law that choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of village Lambardar is final and should not normally be interfered with, unless and until the Collector has taken a perverse view or has not exercised his choice judiciously, or where the order discloses a lack of jurisdiction or an error of fact so palpable, as to render his order arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable and not otherwise. The same are totally lacking in this case. As indicated earlier, in the present case, the Collector has rightly weighed the respective merits and demerits of the candidates and appointed Sajjan Singh(respondent No.5) as Lambardar. 11. Not only that, the choice of the Collector was further upheld by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, vide impugned order(Annexure P-3) and the Financial Commissioner by way of impugned order(Annexure P-6). 12. At the same time, learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out Civil Writ Petition No.22675 of 2011 4 any legal violation or material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned orders(Annexures P-1, P-3 and P-6) are illegal and would invite any interference by this Court in this regard. 13. Meaning thereby, since, the authorities have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant behalf, so, to me, no ground for interference, in exercise of limited writ jurisdiction of this Court, is made out. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 15. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. December 07, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE