IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.22511 of 2011 Date of decision : 5.12.2011 Gurmej Singh ....Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Jalandhar Division Jalandhar and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Narinder S.Lucky, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 31.12.2009 and 7.7.2011 vide which respondent No.3 – Amrik Singh has been appointed as Lambardar of village Kalewal in preference to the claim of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 does not possess and own any land in village Kalewal to which the Lambardari relates to. Apart from the other demerits, this is the sole disadvantage which the petitioner perceives that respondent no.3 has to press his advantageous claim before this Court. While doing so learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram & Ors. 2009 AIR (SC) 1761, wherein in para 3 C.W.P.No.22511 of 2011 -2- it has been observed as follows :- “3. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said rule making power, the State of Punjab framed the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (for short “the Rules”). Criterion for appointment in the post of Lambardar is laid down in Rule 15 and that of his discharge is laid down in Rule 16 thereof. Rule 15 enumerates the factors which are required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of appointment in the said post being : “(a) his hereditary claims; (b) the property in the estate possessed by the candidate to secure the recovery of land-revenue; (c) services rendered to the State by himself or by his family' (d) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness;” The competent authority reasoned that the selected candidate Amrik Singh was 45 years of age and was a matriculate having 10 Kanals 8 Marlas of land and even though he had no land in village Kalewal in his name but his father was owner of ancestral land in the village in question and a Will has been executed by his father proposing to bequeath his entire land holding to his wife and sons and Amrik Singh is one of them. Apart from that, another collateral Ram Kishan son of Ram Chand resident of village Kalewal, who is also owner of some land in the village, has also executed a Will in the name of Amrik Singh. It was then reasoned by the competent C.W.P.No.22511 of 2011 -3- authority that looking at his holding which he is going to acquire in village Kalewal and also the holding that he has individually in his name even though not situated in the village, he has sufficient influence in the village and is engaged in social work having donated blood to needed persons. Finding the character, age, influence, educational qualification adequate he was selected in preference to the petitioner as Lambardar. On due consideration of the matter, I do not find any perversity in the reasoning or approach adopted by the competent authority. The interpretation that learned counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to place on Rules 15 and 16 of the Rules to say that an individual must necessarily possess land in the village so as to enable him to be appointed as a Lambardar is misplaced. The ostensible idea behind the provisions is that a person who is appointed as Lambardar should have sufficient assets in the village so as to ensure that he is a responsible person from the village enjoying influence and should be able to secure the recovery of land revenue. Respondent No.3, as facts unfold from the impugned order, has sufficient interest in the village in the shape of ancestral property which has also been bequeathed to him by his father and another collateral in the village. This indicates his roots in the village and reflects upon his influence as well. The Rule as it suggests is directed to ensure that an outsider may not seek precedence over a resident of the village and the ostensible purpose behind the dictate that he should have holding in the village is that any chance of an impostor from outside is obviated besides ensuring that such a candidate C.W.P.No.22511 of 2011 -4- would be having sufficient knowledge about the revenue affairs being a land holder and would also be able to ensure recovery of land revenue. If these factors are sufficiently possessed by respondent No.3, then merely because on the date in question the Will in question has not been translated into reality conferring ownership upon the said respondent, cannot ipso facto be a ground to oust his claim for Lambardari if he otherwise possess sufficient land including land in the same village. It is also to be understood that this is one of the factors which is to be taken into account and not necessarily the sole factor to be relied upon. The competent authority has reasoned in its order which reasons have been detailed in the foregoing paragraph and thus finding him to be a more appropriate choice he was appointed as Lambardar, and in the absence of any illegality or perversity, I am not inclined to interfere in the exercise of powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 5.12.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss