Sampuran Singh vs The State of Punjab and Others

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 2.4.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 6127 of 2012) filed by the appellant, challenging the order 12.4.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the District Collector, Sangrur, appointing respondent No. 4 as Lambardar of village Gobindpura, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur; as well as the order dated 12.10.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, affirming the said order, has been dismissed. Though there is a delay of 28 days in filing the appeal and the appellant has filed application (CM No. 2181-LPA of 2012) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard learned counsel for the appellant on merits, and gone through the order, passed by the learned Single Judge, as well as the aforesaid orders, passed by the revenue authorities.

The Collector did not appoint the appellant as Lambardar being not found suitable, as he was in unauthorised possession of the land of the Gram Panchayat. The finding with regard to the illegal and unauthorised possession of the appellant over the land of the Gram Panchayat has been affirmed by the Commissioner as well as the learned Single Judge.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the said finding is contrary to the record. At this stage, we cannot appreciate this submission and go into the finding of fact recorded by the authorities below.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant argued that initially, when the applications for appointment of Lambardar in the village were invited, only one person, i.e. respondent No. 4, applied and vide order dated 21.11.2005 (Annexure P-1), the Collector after observing that the said applicant was illiterate remanded the matter to lower court with a direction to invite fresh applications for the post of Lambardar. After the re-advertisement, two persons, i.e. appellant and respondent No. 4, applied and the Collector, after considering the merits of both the candidates, appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar of the village and did not find the appellant as suitable person, because he was in unauthorised possession of the land of the Gram Panchayat. Though respondent No. 4 was illiterate, but it was found that being son of the deceased Lambardar, he was having experience in the field. Having been found more suitable than the appellant, respondent No. 4 was appointed as Lambardar of the village.

Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that once the Collector, vide order dated 21.11.2005, remanded the matter after observing that respondent No. 4 was not suitable being illiterate, how after remand he became suitable. We do not find any force in this contention. After the remand of the case, the appellant and respondent No. 4 had applied for the post of Lambardar. However, the Collector, after considering the comparative merits of both the candidates and noticing the fact that respondent No. 4 was illiterate, found him more suitable than the appellant, being son of the deceased Lambardar and having experience in the working of Lambardari. On the other hand, the appellant was found unsuitable being in unauthorised and illegal possession over the Gram Panchayat land. It is well settled position of law, as held in Ujagar Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 28 and Gurdial Singh Versus Iqbal Singh, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 283, that choice of the Collector is final and should not be interfered until and unless the order is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. In the present case, we do not find that the order of the Collector, which was affirmed by the Commissioner, was illegal, perverse, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, in any manner.

In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. No merit. Dismissed.