Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chhota Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 4 July, 2014
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CWP No. 10102 of 2014 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 10102 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: July 04, 2014
Chhota Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. Kuljit Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mrs. Gurnam Kaur Turka, Advocate,
for the caveator-respondent no.5.
Paramjeet Singh, J.(Oral)
CM No.7616-CWP of 2014 Civil Misc. application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Annexure P/13 is taken on record.
CWP No. 10102 of 2014
Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 03.06.2009 (Annexure P/8) passed by respondent no.3 - District Collector, Patiala, appointing respondent no.5- Jatinder Pal Singh as Kumar Virender 2014.07.09 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 10102 of 2014 (O&M) 2 Lambardar of Village Boota Singh Wala, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala, order dated 05.05.2010 (Annexure P/9) passed by respondent no.2 - Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and order dated 26.02.2014 (Annexure P/12) passed by Financial Commissioner, Punjab, whereby appeal and revision petition filed by the petitioner have been dismissed, respectively.
Brief facts of the case are that to fill up the vacancy caused on account of death of Manjit Singh, previous Lambardar of Village Buta Singh Wala, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, applications were invited from the interested persons by making proclamation in the village. In pursuant to the proclamation, four candidates applied for the said post. During the proceedings, two candidates withdrew their candidature and only two candidates, namely, Chhota Singh and Jatinderpal Singh contested for the said post. After completing formalities, matter came up for consideration before the Collector. The District Collector after appreciating the comparative merit of the candidates found Chhota Singh
- petitioner to be fit and suitable candidate and vide order dated 28.11.2006 (Annexure P/3) appointed him as Lambardar of the Village. Aggrieved against the order (Annexure P/3), respondent No. 5 - Jatinderpal Singh, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide order dated 05.09.2007 (Annexure P/4) accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the District Collector for fresh decision as Kumar Virender 2014.07.09 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 10102 of 2014 (O&M) 3 there was case pending against the petitioner. Against that order, petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, which has been dismissed. On remand, District Collector heard the case again and vide order dated 03.06.2009 appointed respondent no.5 as Lambardar of the village. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner and the same has been dismissed vide order dated 05.05.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, which has been allowed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 13.10.2010 (Annexure P/10) and set aside the order dated 05.50.2010 of the Commissioner and order dated 03.06.2009 of District Collector, Patiala. Against that order, respondent no.5 filed a CWP No. 1729 of 2011 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of and case was remanded to the Financial Commissioner for fresh decision vide order dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure P/11). On remand, the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 26.02.2014 (Annexure P/12), dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
A perusal of the record shows that all the authorities have recorded concurrent findings. The District Collector after appreciating the comparative merits found respondent No.5-Jatinderpal Singh to be fit and Kumar Virender 2014.07.09 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 10102 of 2014 (O&M) 4 suitable candidate and appointed him as such. The operative part of the order is as under:-
"I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the candidates and have carefully perused the record of the case. From the comparative merit of the candidates, I find that Chhota Singh is an old man and Jatinder Pal Singh is an energetic young and an educated person. Since he is 32 years old and has studied upto BA Part-I. Jatinder Pal Singh exercises a good influence in the village since the Gram Panchayat of the village has passed a resolution in his favour and 34 respectables of the village have also filed a Majornama supporting his claim. 25 more persons of the village deposed in his favour. No shortcoming could be pointed out in his character. Furthermore, his deceased uncle was the earlier Lambardar of the village. After due approval of Tehsildar Samana he assisted his ailing uncle in performing the duties of a Lambardar. Rather, on many occasions, of course, with the prior approval of the Tehsildar, he acted independently in collecting the land revenue due from farmers and depositing the same with Govt. Not a single incident of his doing a wrong thing was pointed against him. On the other hand, the other candidate Sh. Chhota Singh does not inspite much confidence. It is a matter of record that without anyway appointed as Lambardar, he acted as one. This happened on 28.11.2006 when the Collector had appointed him but the formal sanad was yet to be issued and in appeal the learned Commissioner had set aside his appointment. Hon'ble Punjab Kumar Virender 2014.07.09 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 10102 of 2014 (O&M) 5 and Haryana High Court in an order as appeared in 2002(3) RCR Civil Page 445 has clearly laid down that conduct of candidate-conduct of the candidate is material-Respondent successfully confirmed to function as Lambardar despite stay of his appointment by evading service. Such a conduct of the candidate cannot be ignored. Furthermore, it has been proved that Sh. Chhota Singh was said to have encroached a shamilat pond in the village. Surely, such a person as this does not deserve to be a Lambardar of the village.
Lambardar of a village must be a person of dignity and must command respect of Govt. functionaries as well as the peasant farmers. A person who indulges in encroachment of shamilat land or works without any authentication, surely, is not a fit candidate for Lambardar. Furthermore, the forces of change and development are fast engulfing the village society. Only an educated and young person can better prepare the peasant farmers to respond in such a way as to seize the opportunities made available by these forces of change and opening of the village society. On all these scores, Sh. Jatinderpal Singh seems to be far ahead of Chhota Singh. Therefore, I have no doubt in declaring that he is a much more suitable persons for the post of lambardar of village Boota Singh Wala."
The Divisional Commissioner upheld the order of the District Collector and recorded a finding that respondent no.5 is more meritorious than the petitioner in terms of age as well as education and the Gram Panchayat of the Village has passed a resolution in favour of respondent Kumar Virender 2014.07.09 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 10102 of 2014 (O&M) 6 no.5 and other residents of the village have also supported him. It has also been recorded by the Divisional Commissioner that respondent no.5 has been helping during the illness of his real uncle (now deceased) in performance of the duties of Lambardar and the said duties were performed after getting due permission from the Tehsildar. It is a settled principle of law that the choice of the Collector cannot be lightly set aside. It can only be set aside if there is perversity or illegality in the impugned order of the Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the District Collector. The findings of the District Collector have been affirmed by the Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner.
In view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram & others, 2009(3) SCC-439, Lila Ram Vs. Asa Ram, 1995 Lahore Law Times-29 followed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Phool Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 819, the choice of the District Collector cannot be lightly set aside.
In Mahavir Singh's case (supra) the Supreme Court of India has observed that there should be no interference with the choice made by the Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar even if two views are possible. It is only the prerogative of the Collector to Kumar Virender 2014.07.09 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 10102 of 2014 (O&M) 7 compare the merits of the candidates for appointment to the post of Lambardar. There are concurrent findings recorded by the revenue authorities.
In view of above discussion, the present writ petition fails. Dismissed in limine.
No order as to costs.
July 04, 2014 [Paramjeet Singh]
vkd Judge
Kumar Virender
2014.07.09 14:07
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document