Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kamal Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others on 17 November, 2025
( 2025:HHC:39871 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
LPA No.638 of 2025
Decided on: 17th November, 2025
Kamal Singh .......Appellant
.
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.
of
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the appellant: rt Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Senior
Advocate with Mr.Divya Raj
Singh and Mr.Tejasvi Dogra,
Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr.Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional
Advocate General for
respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.Ajay Kumar, Senior
Advocate with Mr.Sat Prakash,
Advocate for respondent No.5.
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)
The challenge, in present Letters Patent Appeal is by respondent No.5 Kamal Singh, to the judgment of learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.578 of 2013 dated 25.07.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge had restored the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Una dated 30.05.2008 (Annexure P-6), appointing Sh. Sanjay Kumar as the 'Lambardar' of village Jankaur, District Una, H.P. The order of 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:56:21 :::CIS( 2025:HHC:39871 ) 2 the Deputy Commissioner had also been upheld by the Divisional Commissioner on 11.12.2011 (Annexure P-9), but upset by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on .
11.12.2012 (Annexure P-11), which was accordingly quashed by the learned Single Judge.
2. The learned Single Judge was of the considered of opinion that the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) while exercising jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act of the revisional powers was rt meant to subserve the interest of justice by eliminating the element of illegality or perversity and the comparative analysis of the orders of the two candidates could not have been done without opportunity of being heard, while exercising the judicial powers.
3. It has also been noticed that the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) was biased by the earlier order dated 29.01.2004 of the Deputy Commissioner, Una which has been set aside by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra vide order dated 22.11.2006 and, therefore, the reasoning given vide said order could not have again been reiterated.
4. The present appellant Kamal Singh was distantly related to deceased Lambardar Joginder Singh and, therefore, ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:56:21 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:39871 ) 3 his hereditary claim was held to be of no consequence. The observations earlier made in the case of Sanjay Kumar that he was not the original resident of village Jankaur, had not .
been appreciated by the Deputy Commissioner on the earlier occasion and it was directed that Rule 15 of Punjab Land Revenue Rules, which had been adopted by the State of of Himachal Pradesh, did not provide as such. By the subsequent order dated 30.05.2008 of District Collector, Una the scales were found weighing in favour of Sanjay Kumar, as rt the District Collector came to the conclusion that both the candidates were educated and both were distantly related to deceased Lambardar Joginder Singh. The weighing factor by the Deputy Commissioner was that he had been working as 'Sarbarah Lambardar' since 11.03.1992 and, therefore, was experienced enough to discharge the duties of Lambardar of village Jankaur.
5. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) had been biased by the fact that Sanjay Kumar was not the original resident of village Jankaur and he had become inhabitant of village Jankaur by way of inherting land through 'will' and secondly: the allegation of encroachment, as such on the Government land of the present appellant Kamal Singh had ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:56:21 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:39871 ) 4 not been proved. It was accordingly held that once the Divisional Commissioner had set aside the order by placing reliance on the earlier orders it could not be a ground, as .
such, to upset the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner.
6. The applicability of Section 118 of the H.P. of Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1975 could not be considered as a ground for acquisition of the land only on the fictional circumstances by the Financial Commissioner. The benefit, as rt such, has been given of the long service rendered by Sanjay Kumar as 'Sarbarah Lambardar' and since the District Collector, as such, has the jurisdiction to appoint Lambardar, as per Rule 15, on the basis of parameters and criteria, the view taken by the District Collector not having been held perverse, the interference, as such, was not held to be justified. Reliance had been placed upon the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harsharan Singh vs. Financial Commissioner Appeal, 2009 (1) RCR (Civil)
909.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has accordingly argued that admittedly, the private respondent, as such, was the grand-son of one of the daughters of brother of deceased ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:56:21 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:39871 ) 5 Lambardar Joginder Singh and had been married in Garshankar (Punjab) and not the resident of village Jankaur and, therefore, on this count, due weightage and preference .
has been given by the Financial Commissioner to the appellant and the order was wrongly set aside. He again stressed upon the hereditary claim and that he had more of property and not an encroacher and a preference had been wrongly given to the matriculation qualification of respondent No.5. rt
8. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is higher in qualification being a graduate is not of much consequence, keeping in view the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner that apparently private respondent was not an illiterate person and was a matriculate.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.5 has tendered various documents to point out that these documents were placed on record to show that there is adoption, as such, in the family and apart from the land, which has been given i.e. 23 kanals from Sh. Jagdish Singh brother of deceased Lambardar, he is also beneficiary of the ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:56:21 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:39871 ) 6 succession by way of will from Joginder Singh, deceased Lambardar.
10. Apparently, it is thus pointed out that both .
Jagdish Singh and Joginder Singh had daughters, as such, on that count, he has been also living with his grand-father and his brother in the joint family in village after 1992 and of was performing the duties for over a period of eight years, which aspect was considered keeping in view Rule 15 (c), which provides the services under the State itself to be rt considered. In such circumstances, once the Deputy Commissioner had considered him more suitable, the interference by the Financial Commissioner, looking into the merits of the candidates, was not justified.
11. After hearing the arguments, we are of the considered opinion that it is settled principle that the order of the learned Single Judge upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner is not liable to be interfered with. Reliance can also be placed in case of Sarwan Kumar vs. The Financial Commissioner Appeals-I, Punjab, 2002 (2) RCR (Civil) 520 of Division Bench which went on to hold that the choice of the Collector cannot be substituted by the Commissioner as to which of the candidate was better.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:56:21 :::CIS( 2025:HHC:39871 ) 7
12. Another Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurlal Singh vs. Financial Commissioner, (P&H) (DB) 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 792 also .
held that the Financial Commissioner though has revisional power, the same has to be only exercised if there is glaring illegality or irregularity in the said order and cannot as such of juggle the comparative merits of the candidates. Similarly in Ujagar Singh vs. State of Punjab (P&H) (DB) 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 28, it was held that subjective satisfaction of the rt Collector is not to be interfered with until the order discloses a lack of jurisdiction, an error of law or an error of fact so palpable as to render his order arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable and selection of Lambardar was left to the discretion of the revenue authorities.
13. In Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram and others (2009) 3 SCC 439 the said principle was settled by the Apex Court that the District Collector is the appointing authority and the son of the deceased Lambardar had helped him taking the work during his life time and was more experienced in the work of Lambardari. The reasoning as such was not to be interfered with which had been done by ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:56:21 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:39871 ) 8 the High Court which order was then set aside by the Apex Court.
14. Perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner .
passed on 30.05.2008 (Annexure P-6) would go on to show that the Deputy Commissioner had examined these aspects and the fact that Sanjay Kumar had inherited the property of being the grand-son of the brother of deceased Lambardar, as such, and had also worked as Lambardar. At that point of time, it has not been brought to the notice of the Deputy rt Commissioner that for a period of eight long years, the private respondent was not available and as he has not discharged the duties during this period of the responsibilities granted to him on account of ailment of Joginder Singh from 11.03.1992, till his death in the year 2000.
15. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Deputy Commissioner had found him an appropriate candidate and, therefore, given him the benefit of additional qualification by placing reliance upon the judgments in Pritam Singh vs. Jaspal Singh and also Ram Kishan vs. Shiv Dutt of the Financial Commissioner to hold that where qualifications of both the candidates are equal, it ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:56:21 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:39871 ) 9 is preferable to opt for the one who had the necessary experience.
16. It is not disputed that the said order has been .
upheld by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi on 11.12.2011, wherein, it has been noticed that the earlier Lambardar had become infirm due to his old age and was of unable to discharge his duties and he had requested Tehsildar Una to appoint Sanjay Kumar as 'Sarbrah Lambardar', who vide order dated 11.03.1992 appointed him rt as 'Sarbrah Lambardar' and he worked as such till the death of Joginder Singh as 'Lambardar' on 27.10.2000.
17. In such circumstances, keeping in view his experience, into account, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner has been upheld. It is also settled principle that the hereditary claim as put forward has been held to be discriminatory by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana and High Court and struck down in Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana 1974 PLR 67, keeping in view the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore, Clause (a) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act which provided such consideration was held to be bad. The said view was followed in Bhagwan Singh vs. Financial ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:56:21 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:39871 ) 10 Commissioner 2009 (1) PLR 82 and thereafter reiterated by another Division Bench in Rattan Singh vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana 2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 414.
.
Resultantly, even the said preferential claim does not survive.
18. Even otherwise, Sanjay Kumar was connected with the deceased Lambardar having rendered services and of also apparently as per documents placed on record showing that he had not only born in the said village, but his children were also born in the said village, which would be clear from rt various certificates i.e., Annexure P-25 and Annexure P-26.
Annexure P-27 which would go on to show that the daughter of Sanjay Kumar was also educated in Government Middle School, Jankaur.
19. Similarly, Annexure P-22 would also go on to show that Sanjay Kumar did his matriculation from district Una where his present village is situated and, therefore, he was not residing, apparently, with his mother in village Garshankar (Punjab). The sequence of events would thus go on to show that it is proved beyond the anvil of doubt that he was the resident of the said village and there was never any dispute regarding rendering the services during the time his grand-father's brother was alive and he was not only the ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:56:21 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:39871 ) 11 beneficiary of both the brothers who apparently, did not have male legal heirs due to which he was residing with them.
20. In such circumstances, the jurisdiction exercised .
by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi was not liable to be interfered with by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). The said order has of been rectified by the learned Single Judge, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment rt passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity.
21. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.
( G.S. Sandhawalia )
Chief Justice
( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj )
November 17, 2025 Judge
(naveen)
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 21:56:21 :::CIS