Richh Pal vs The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—On 20.12.2005, applications were invited to fill up the post of B.C. Lambardar in Village Badanpur, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind. Respondent No. 4 was the only applicant, who submitted his application. Assistant Collector Ist Grade in his order dated 16.1.2006, viewed that the proclamation was not done properly in the village and issued direction for inviting fresh applications from the villagers. This was on the basis of a complaint made by the villagers, which included the petitioner as well. Thereafter, the petitioner also applied for the post alongwith respondent No. 4 and one Shiv Kumar. Shiv Kumar did not come present and was proceeded ex-parte. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 alone remained in the field. The petitioner is a matriculate and was owning 28 kanals of land. Respondent No. 4, on the other hand, was not owning any land. On 4.9.2007, the Collector appointed the petitioner as Lambardar. Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal against this order. He pleaded that his Aunt Ram Bai had made a will of 2 acres of land in his favour. Respondent No. 4 further stated that after death of Bhana Ram, Lambardar, he has been collecting land tax and water tax and depositing the same in the treasury. Appeal filed by respondent No. 4, however, was dismissed on 16.7.2009. The Commissioner found that the integrity of respondent No. 4 was doubtful. The academic qualification of the petitioner was also considered better. It is pointed out that work of B.C. Lambardar is not to collect the land revenue but main work is to verify the documents or to identify the parties.

Respondent No. 4 accordingly filed a revision against this order before the Financial Commissioner, who allowed the revision on 8.7.2010 and has set-aside the well-reasoned orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner. Terming this order to be arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court.

Replies on behalf of official respondents as well as respondent No. 4 are filed. Respondent No. 4 would urge that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. He would point out that he had nowhere stated that he was owner of 2 acres of land but had only relied upon the statement that his Aunt (Ram Bai) had executed a will in his favour. Respondent No. 4 has otherwise also denied the various averments made in the writ petition. As per respondent No. 4, the finding by respondent No. 3 that respondent No. 4 had made false statement regarding ownership of two acres land is wrong, illegal and perverse. The counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 would highlighted this fact that the Collector has non-suited the answering respondent only on the ground that he had made a false statement regarding ownership of the land, whereas the case of respondent No. 4 had been that there was a registered will in his favour by his Aunt, who was issueless. On this basis, the counsel for respondent No. 4 would urge that the order passed by the Collector is perverse.

The counsel for the petitioner, however, would counter the pleas and urge that the Financial Commissioner has interfered with the well reasoned order passed by the Collector and Commissioner without any finding that the order passed by the Collector was perverse or arbitrary. As per the counsel for the petitioner, the Financial Commissioner and for that matter Commissioner can interfere with the choice of Collector on very limited grounds and that is when it is found to be arbitrary, discriminatory or otherwise capricious. The counsel further submits that the order passed by the Collector and upheld by the Commissioner can not be termed arbitrary in any manner for Financial Commissioner to interfere.

I have minutely perused the orders passed by the Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. The Collector has noticed that both the candidates are equally educated. He has then noticed that respondent No. 4 got his statement recorded, stating that 2 acres of land was standing on his name but could not produce any evidence. There was only a will in his favour and the testator was alive till that time. Respondent No. 4 was found to have misstated facts in this regard. It is in this context that counsel for respondent No. 4 had said that there was no mis-statement on his part.

Before the Commissioner, the counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 had stated as is noticed in the order that he is 38 years old and is a matriculate. It is also noticed that respondent No. 4 has 2 acres of land. The Commissioner then compared the qualifications of the petitioner and respondent No. 4. The Commissioner then noticed the conduct of respondent No. 4, wherein he, on the basis of suspicious proclamation carried on secretly at the initial stage, made an attempt to get himself appointed as Lambardar in haste. From this, it was noticed that respondent No. 4 is not having a character, which can be termed as above board. Otherwise, qualifications of both the candidates were found equal. The image of the petitioner was found and considered better. He was a year younger in age. The petitioner was also owning 28 kanals of land whereas respondent No. 4 did not own any land and had only a will of his Aunt to show in his favour. He accordingly upheld the order passed by the Collector.

No doubt, the Financial Commissioner has observed that the statement of respondent No. 4 did not tantamount to false statement but still was to find that both the candidates are almost same in age and also were equal in educational qualifications. The Financial Commissioner then noticed that the Aunt of respondent No. 4 had willed two acres of land in his favour. He also found that he was collecting land tax and water tax. Without appreciating as to how respondent No. 4 was doing so without any authority, the Financial Commissioner has wrongly weighed this fact in favour of respondent No. 4. There is no finding returned by the Financial Commissioner that the order passed by the Collector or Divisional Commissioner were perverse or arbitrary in any manner. It has consistently been held by various Courts that the choice of Collector is material and is required to be upheld, unless it is arbitrary or discriminatory or capricious. Reference in this regard can be made to Ujagar Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 28 and Gurdial Singh Versus Iqbal Singh, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 283. Thus, the Financial Commissioner has interfered with the choice of the Collector, which was upheld by the Commissioner without any justifiable cause. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner, therefore, can not be sustained and is set-aside. The order passed by the Collector and upheld by the Commissioner is restored. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.