Siri Ram vs Financial Commissioner, Punjab and Others

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Having completed all the codal formalities as contemplated under the provisions of The Punjab Land Revenue

Act, 1887 and the Rules framed thereunder (hereinafter to be referred as ""the Act and the relevant Rules""), the District Collector (respondent

No.3) appointed Bharat Singh son of Lehna Singh (respondent No.4) as Lambardar of village Jhanjheri, Tehsil Kharar, District S.A.S.Nagar, by

virtue of impugned order dated 10.6.2008 (Annexure P3).

Aggrieved by the order (Annexure P3), the petitioner filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala

Division (respondent No.2), by way of impugned order dated 3.3.2009 (Annexure P4).

Again dissatisfied with the orders (Annexures P3 & P4), the petitioner filed the revision petition, which was also dismissed, by the Financial

Commissioner, Punjab (respondent No.1), by means of impugned order dated 17.8.2010 (Annexure P5).

The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders (Annexures P3 to P5), invoking

the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply,

to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition.

Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner was more meritorious, so, the authorities below committed a mistake in

appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar, sans merit.

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the Lambardar is a village officer as defined u/s 3(11) of the Act and is a link between the

Government functionaries and the village peasants. It is age old institution and is an integral & significant part of revenue system. The Collector is

the appointing authority of the Lambardar. The appointment of Lambardar is administrative function and is prerogative of the District Collector,

being In-charge of the Administration. He is in an advantageous position to examine the merits and demerits of the candidates. Therefore, it would

always be in the interest of justice & administration and it is the duty of the Collector to appoint such person in the office of Lambardar, who is

otherwise eligible and competent to carry out the duties efficiently.

As is evident from the record that, Bharat Singh (respondent No.4) possesses more educational qualification and owner of more land in the

village than that of the petitioner. After considering the respective merits and demerits of the candidates, the District Collector appointed

respondent No.4 as Lambardar, vide impugned order (Annexure P3), the operative part of which is as under:

After carefully perusal of the record on the file and on hearing counsels and both candidates personally I have reached on the conclusion that

Bharat Singh lambardar is a qualified candidate for the post of lambardari because he is more qualified in education from Siri Ram. He is having

more land from Siri Ram. Whereas the question of hereditary claim of Siri Ram, Siri Ram is having no hereditary claim on this post because on this

post of lambardari the father of Siri Ram remains Sarbarah Lambardar. He was not a real lambardar. Real lambardar was brother of the father of

Siri Ram. Besides this Bharat Singh candidate remained available in village at every time. Respectables of the Village also recommended for

appointment of Bharat Singh as lambardar.

So, keeping in mind the above said I appoint Bharat Singh son of Shri Lehna Singh as lambardar of village Jhanjeri on the post vacated due to the

death of Gian Singh Lambardar, Village Jhanjeri. Copy of the order be sent to Sub Divisional Magistrate Kharar. After compliance, the case file

be consigned to the record room.

It is now well settled proposition of law that choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of village Lambardar should not normally be

interfered with, unless the Collector has taken a perverse view and has not exercised his choice judiciously. In the instant case, the Collector has

rightly weighed the respective pros and cons of the candidates and appointed Bharat Singh (respondent No.4) as Lambardar.

Not only that, the choice of the District Collector was further upheld by the Divisional Commissioner (Annexure P4) and the Financial

Commissioner, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P5).

At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to

how and in what manner, the impugned orders (Annexures P3 to P5) are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant connection.

Meaning thereby, the authorities below have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant direction. Such orders, containing valid reasons,

cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of

India, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel

for the petitioner, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P3 to P5) deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the

case.

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner.

In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such.