Kuldip Singh vs Financial Commissioner (Revenue)

Hemant Gupta, J.—The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against an order passed by learned Single Bench of this Court on 05.03.2014 whereby an order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue in review and an order of the Commissioner were set aside and that appointment of respondent no. 5-Jaswinder Singh as Lambardar of village Kanga, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar was restored.

In the process for appointment of Lambardar of village Kanga, the present appellant-Kuldip Singh and respondent no. 5-Jaswinder Singh were amongst five candidates aspiring for the appointment as Lambardar. The District Collector on the recommendations of Naib Tehsildar and Assistant Collector appointed respondent no. 5-Jaswinder Singh as Lambardar. The District Collector found that Jaswinder Singh is 39 years old, 10th pass, owns 49 kanals 13 marlas land, tractor, scooter and car; has also donated Rs. 500/- for Tsunami Relief. However, in appeal by the present appellant-Kuldip Singh, learned Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector by substituting his discretion finding that the choice of the Collector is perverse and contrary to the rules. However, in further appeal, learned Financial Commissioner set aside the order of the Commissioner on 18.12.2009 wherein it was noticed that Kuldip Singh is 27 years old, studied till 10+2, owner of land measuring 49 kanals 13 marlas as against Jaswinder Singh, who is 39 years of age, studied till 10th standard. It was also noticed that appellant-Kuldip Singh has got transferred some land in his favour from his father on 10.05.2006 in order to prove that he has more land than respondent no. 5-Jaswinder Singh. Learned Financial Commissioner found that there is not much difference between both the candidates but keeping in view the choice exercised by the Collector, the order of the Commissioner was set aside. However, the present appellant filed review application which has been allowed by another officer exercising the powers of the Financial Commissioner on 16.03.2012 which order has been set aside by learned Single Judge.

The order has not been reviewed by the same officer but another officer. Apart from the said fact, learned Collector has considered the merits of both the candidates and appointed Jaswinder Singh as Lambardar. The Commissioner has merely substituted his opinion against the choice of the Collector. The learned Financial Commissioner has rightly set aside the order of the Commissioner but again after change of officer, the present appellant has sought review which has been allowed.

In view of law laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram and Others, and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Phool Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Others, the choice of the District Collector cannot be lightly set aside.

In Mahavir Singh''s case (supra) the Supreme Court of India has observed that there should be no interference with the choice made by the Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar even if two views are possible. It is only the prerogative of the Collector to compare the merits of the candidates for appointment to the post of Lambardar.

We do not find any illegality in the order passed by learned Single Bench setting aside the order of the Financial Commissioner passed in review application as the discretion exercised by the Collector could not have been interfered with by exercising direction.

Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.