Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harsharan Singh vs Financial Commissioner Appeal-1 ... on 14 January, 2009
Civil Writ Petition No. 7255 of 2006 1
****
Harsharan Singh Versus Financial Commissioner Appeal-1 Punjab and others Present: Mr. Tribhuvan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab for respondents No. 1 to 3.
Mr. S.S. Bhinder, Advocate for respondent No.4.
***** The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, setting aside the order passed by the Collector appointing petitioner as a Lambardar of village Sammeywali Tehsil and District Mukatsar.
The post of village Sammeywali fell vacant and sanction was accorded to fill up the said post on 15.3.2001. Number of persons applied for appointment as Lambardar. Ultimately three candidates were left to compete. After police verification of the candidates, Tehsildar and SDM recommended the name of respondent Preetinder Singh for appointment as Lambardar. Collector Mukatsar, however, on 31.12.2002 remanded the case back as Naksha Lambardari was not attached and on the ground that the petitioner was not heard. Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar again recommended the name of respondent No.4. Sub Divisional Magistrate, this time after considering merits and demerits recommended the name of the petitioner. The Collector after considering and assessing the merits of the various candidates appointed the petitioner as a Lambardar. The Collector has Civil Writ Petition No. 7255 of 2006 2 observed that petitioner is 42 years old. He has a good character. He was also performing duties of Lambardar from the year 1988 to 1996. He was in a possession of 30 acres of land whereas his family was having 100 acres of land. Observing that being an agriculturist, the petitioner would be easily available in the village, the Collector has preferred him for appointment.
Respondent filed an appeal against the said order and Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector and appointed respondent, Preetinder Singh as Lambardar. This order was upheld by the Financial Commissioner, which are under challenge in the present writ petition.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the Collector, who has to take work from the Lambardar and his choice is required to be preferred unless it is found perverse. The counsel would further contend that the Collector had assessed the merits of each candidates and has appointed the petitioner. This choice cannot said to be perverse in any manner. The counsel would rather find fault with the observation made by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, who have interfered with the choice exercised by the Collector on a ground which, as per the counsel cannot be said valid in terms of the rule regulating the appointment of Lambardar. In this regard reference is made to Rule 15 of Punjab Land Revenue Rules, where the aspect which are required to be taken into consideration have been specified. The Rule 15 reads as under:
"15. Matters to be considered in first appointments.- In all first appointments of headman, regard shall be had Civil Writ Petition No. 7255 of 2006 3 among other matters to:-
(a) his hereditary claims;
(b) the property in the estate possessed by the
candidate to secure the recovery of land-revenue. (c ) services rendered to the State by himself or by his family;
(d) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness;
(e) the strength and importance of the community from which selection of a headman is to be made;
(f) services rendered by himself or by his family in the national movements to secure freedom of India.
In case of an ex-headman of an estate or Sub-division thereof in the territory now comprising the State of Punjab who had resigned or was dismissed on account of his participation in an national movement before partition and another headman was appointed in his place, the present incumbent of the post shall be removed irrespective of the provisions of the rule 16 and the ex-headman would be appointed in his place if he has not rendered himself unfit for appointment for any of the reasons given in rule 16 except imprisonment for a political offence before 15th August, 1947. In case the ex- headman is no longer alive, a person of his family who would under the rules have been entitled to be headman if the resignation or dismissal had not intervened, would be appointed as headman. But when no such person Civil Writ Petition No. 7255 of 2006 4 exist there would be no need to remove the existing Lambardar."
Hereditary claim is the first aspect required to be taken into consideration. The aspect being mentioned as Sub Clause 1 of the rule appears to have significance. It may indicate that this aspect would need preference over the other while exercising the choice.
The order passed by the Collector is perused. The view taken by the Collector that an agriculturist would be available in the village compared to a person who is a practising Advocate appears reasonable, just and proper. Respondent was also a Sarpanch of a village which could have kept him busy in performing his responsibilities as Sarpanch and an added disadvantage for the post of Lambardar. The choice which was exercised by the Collector does not appear to be suffering from any perversity, which could have been interfered with by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner. A view is well settled that the choice exercised by the Collector can be interfered only when it is found to be exercised arbitrary, capricious or is perverse. Nothing is urged before me to show any arbitrariness in the order passed by the Collector. There is no such finding by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner to arrive at different finding.
Precedent if any can be had in the form of Jog Dhian versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others 2005 (2) PLR 306 to say that the choice of the Collector is final and that the Financial Commissioner while partially touching the merits of the case has violated the settled law that inter se merits of the candidates cannot be reconsidered by the Appellate or the Civil Writ Petition No. 7255 of 2006 5 Revisional Authorities. The counsel would also refer to the case of Sarwan Singh versus The Financial Commissioner Appeals-I, Punjab, 2002 (2) RCR (Civil) 520. In this case also it is observed that choice of the Collector for appointment of Lambardar cannot be substituted by the Commissioner merely observing that other candidates was better candidate. While observing about the scope of interference by writ Court it is held in this case that if the order of the competent authority does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity or patent legal error warranting issuance of a writ, the writ Court cannot interfere. The proposition of law that the choice of the Collector is not to be interfered with is fairly well settled. Reference here may be made to the case of Ujagar Singh versus State of Punjab 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 28 and Gurlal Singh versus Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab and others 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 792 that the choice of the Collector is final except where the order discloses a lack of jurisdiction or an error of fact so palpable, as to render his order arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.
Counsel for the respondent points out that the petitioner is not even resident of village. This of course is countered by the counsel for the petitioner, who would show copy of the voters' list as well as ration card, showing the petitioner to be resident of the village. This is not even the ground on which the authorities have interfered in the choice exercised by the Collector. It may not as such be open for this Court to consider this aspect at this stage. The impugned orders passed by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner thus cannot be sustained and the same are set aside. The order passed by the Collector would stand. The appointment of Civil Writ Petition No. 7255 of 2006 6 the petitioner as Lambardar is upheld.
The present writ petition is allowed.
No order as to costs.
January 14, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE