Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I) on 23 April, 2013
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
CWP No.4995 of 2013 1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.4995 of 2013
Date of decision:23.4.2013
Darshan Singh ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab and others
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr.Kamal Narula, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral)
The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.8.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, thereby upholding the orders passed by the District Collector, Moga and Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar.
Facts first. The brief facts of the case are that consequent upon the death of late Shri Jeet Singh, Lambardar, one post of Lambardar fell vacant in the village of the parties. Proceedings were initiated to fill up this post. As many as six candidates applied in response to the proclamation conducted. After verifying the basic facts and hearing all the contesting parties, Tehsildar Nihal Singh Wala recommended the name of respondent No.4, whereas SDM Nihal Singh Wala recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lambardar. CWP No.4995 of 2013 2 Thereafter, the District Collector, Moga, examined, considered and appreciated the merits and demerits of candidates, before coming to just conclusion in favour of respondent No.4 appointing him to the post of Lambardar, vide order dated 19.12.2008 (Annexure P-1). Dissatisfied, petitioner filed his appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.7.2009 (Annexure P-2) and his further revision was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 24.8.2012 (Annexure P-3).
Feeling aggrieved against the above-said orders passed by the respondent-revenue authorities, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was having better merit than respondent No.4. However, the respondent- revenue authorities have failed to appreciate the better merit of the petitioner while appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar. He further submits that the orders passed by the respondent-revenue authorities were contrary to the facts as well as against the relevant provisions of law. He finally prays for allowing the writ petition and for setting aside the impugned orders.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant one is not a fit case warranting interference at the hands of this CWP No.4995 of 2013 3 Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
A combined reading of the orders passed by the District Collector, Moga, Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and also the Financial Commissioner appended at Annexures P-1 to P-3, respectively, would make it clear that the respondent-revenue authorities have committed no error of law while passing their respective impugned orders. The District Collector, Moga, made a comparative study of the merits of the candidates before arriving at a judicious conclusion while appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar, vide his order dated 19.12.2008 (Annexure P-1).
The comparative merits of the candidates were again reconsidered by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, rightly dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, vide his order dated 28.7.2009 (Annexure P-2) and operative part thereof reads as under:-
"I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The record shows that Karnail Singh, respondent No.1, owns 44 Kanals 6 Marlas of land, read upto 7th class, and is the son of deceased lambardar. His name was recommended by the Tehsildar, Nihal Singh Wala. On the other hand, according to Nksha Lambardari, Darshan Singh, appellant owns only 1 kanal 13 marlas of land, and Lachhman Singh, the other appellant, owns 28 kanals 8 CWP No.4995 of 2013 4 marlas of land. The learned District Collector, therefore, rightly ignored the claim of Darshan Singh, appellant, because he had meager amount of land, and Lachhman Singh, the other appellate, did not belong to the Patti concerned. The learned District Collector rightly appointed Karnail Singh @ Joginder Singh, respondent No.1 as Lambardar of village Dhurkot Ransih, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga. It is well settled law that the choice of the District Collector in the matter of appointment of lambardar should not be interferred with unless the order is illegal or perverse in nature. I do not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned order of District Collector, Moga. I, therefore, dismiss both the appeals. A copy of this order be placed on each file."
Similarly, the Financial Commissioner also discussed every relevant aspect of the matter while passing his order dated 24.8.2012 (Annexure P-3), dismissing the revision of the petitioner, thereby upholding the orders passed by the District Collector and Commissioner, Ferozepur Division. The relevant part of the order dated 24.8.2012 reads as under:-
"I have heard to counsel for both the parties and gone through the record available on file. From the perusal of the record found that Darshan Singh petitioner has only 1 kanal 13 marlas land whereas respondent Karnail Singh owns 44 kanals 6 marlas land. The allegations of Karnail Singh @ CWP No.4995 of 2013 5 Joginder Singh using the documents of his deceased brother Karnail Singh is not proved on record. Although, both the candidates claim helping the deceased Lambardar in his work because one is brother's son and the other is the real son. The possibility of Karnail Singh @ Joginder Singh in helping the late Lambardar and thus gaining the experience is much more because he was living with him Darshan Singh is much younger in age and during the life time of the late Lambardar he must have just finished his education and his possibility of working with him seems to be remote. As far as the hereditary claims of both the candidates, I place no reliance on the same.
For the reasons discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, I find no reason to interfere with the order of District Collector, Moga duly upheld by Commissioner Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed."
It is the settled proposition of law that ordinarily the choice of the Collector is not to be interfered with and the same is to be given due respect. However, it is equally true that this rule is not an absolute rule. The choice of the Collector can be interfered with by the higher revenue authorities but only if the order is found to be suffering from any patent illegality or perversity.
During the course of arguments, no such patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error has been pointed out by the learned CWP No.4995 of 2013 6 counsel for the petitioner in any of the impugned orders passed by the respondent-revenue authorities, which is sine quo non for interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that since the impugned orders are based on true facts and justified in law as well, they deserve to be upheld.
It is not the pleaded or argued case of the petitioner that he was not granted due opportunity to prove his case. Petitioner was granted due opportunity at every stage of the litigation. Further, during the course of arguments, no prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the petitioner. The respondent-revenue authorities have considered and rightly appreciated the facts of the case and merits of the candidates taking into consideration all the relevant factors. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the respondent-revenue authorities have committed no error of law and the impugned orders deserve to be upheld.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is misconceived, devoid of any merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.
Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
23.04.2013 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE