LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 1074 OF 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: August 1, 2011. Parties Name Ranjit Singh ...APPELLANT. VERSUS Financial Commissioner , Animal Husbandry, Punjab and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih PRESENT: Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant. Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed against an order dated February 1, 2011, vide which Civil Writ Petition No. 2001 of 2010, filed by the appellant, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In this case, dispute is with regard to an appointment to the post of Lambardar in village Kishanpura, tehsil and district Nawan Shahr. Appellant and respondent No. 3 were the contesting candidates. The Collector, after getting report from the lower revenue staff and taking note LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 1074 OF 2011(O&M) -2- of the comparative merits of the candidates, appointed respondent No. 3 as Lambardar in the village. The appellant went in appeal. The Commissioner reversed an order passed by the Collector, set aside appointment of the respondent No. 3 as Lambardar and instead appointed the appellant as Lambardar of the village. When passing that order, the Commissioner failed to discuss comparative merits of both the candidates. Rather in a very cursory manner, it was said that the appellant had more merit than the other candidates and was an experienced person. Benefit was given to the appellant merely on a ground that against him, no complaint was made by the Sarpanch, that he was not found in unauthorised occupation of the Panchayat land. Respondent No. 3 filed a revision petition, which was allowed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated December 16, 2009. Order passed by the Collector was restored. The appellant came to this Court by filing the above said writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on February 1, 2011, by observing as under: “10 Respondent No.3 is substantially younger in age as compared to the petitioner, being 40 years of age, whereas the petitioner is 52 years of age. Respondent No.3 further has 39 kanals 9 marlas of land in the village as against the land holding of the petitioner i.e. 25 kanals. Respondent No.3 also has experience as Sarbrah Lambardar, being nephew of the deceased Lambardar. The other criteria's are by and large comparable. The discretion exercised by the District Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar has to be accepted, in case it does not suffer from arbitrariness or perverse exercise LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 1074 OF 2011(O&M) -3- of power. In the case in hand, I am of the considered opinion that the District Collector has taken into account the relevant merit factors while directing appointment of respondent No.3 as Lambardar and, therefore, the Commissioner, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, committed an illegality in interfering with the same. I find no fault with the reasons assigned by the Financial Commissioner for upholding the order passed by the District Collector and setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner. No ground for judicial review of the order is made out.” We feel that the order passed is perfectly justified. It is contention of counsel for the appellant that the appellant being an Ex- Serviceman should have been appointed in place of the respondent No. 3 as Lambardar of the village. We feel that so far as merits of both the candidates are concerned, in other segments, the respondent No. 3 has an edge. It was also so said by the Collector, Financial Commissioner and the learned Single Judge. It has also come on record that there was an allegation against the appellant that he was found in unauthorised occupation of the land falling in Khasra No. 84, which was reserved for a passage during consolidation proceedings. To verify the above said fact, a report was sought from the field revenue staff. After making demarcation at the spot, on October 15, 2007, following observation was made by the Kanungo regarding possession of the Panchayat land in dispute: “Thereafter, the record of the Halqa Patwari was examined. Khasra No. 84 Gair Mumkin which is under the ownership of LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 1074 OF 2011(O&M) -4- Panchayat and then Khasra No. 124 owned by Ranjit Singh, son of Kabal Singh were demarcated by way of a tape. No possession of Ranjit Singh over Gair Mumkin rasta has been found, rather Gair Mumkin rasta of 1 ½ feet x 40 Karams has been recently constructed by the aforesaid owner of Khasra No. 124 by filling earth. Ranjit Singh has made the statement that he has been getting this land cultivated from some other landowner for the last about 15 years and he does not cultivate himself. Hence, the report is submitted please.” After receipt of the above report, following report was made by the Tehsildar to the Collector: “No. 365 Date: 17.10.2007 It is requested to Ld. Sub Divisional Magistrate that according to report of field staff, illegal possession of Ranjit Singh s/o Kabal Singh r/o village Kishanpura is not proved on Gair Mumkin Rasta but it is evident from the spot that above said Ranjit Singh was in illegal possession of Rasta measuring 40 Karam x 1 ½ foot but now he vacated the possession and has made it path laying sand over it. Report is sent for further proceedings.” The record clearly indicates that when it was agitated against the appellant that he was in unauthorised occupation of Panchayat land, he with a view to remove that evidence, put up earth in the land measuring 1 LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 1074 OF 2011(O&M) -5- ft. x 40 ft. , which was part of Khasra No. 84. This fact is very clear from reading of the report made by the field staff and the Collector in that regard. Further, merely because the appellant was an Ex-Serviceman, the benefit of appointment cannot be given to him. Such a qualification may be one of the considerations. As per law, Collector's choice, unless it is vitiated in law and on facts, is not to be interfered in the case of appointment of a Lambardar. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Augustine George Masih) Judge August 01, 2011 DKC