Punjab-Haryana High Court
Leela Ram vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 29 November, 2011
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
C.W.P.No.22089 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.22089 of 2011
Date of Decision:-29.11.2011
Leela Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
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") and compared the respective merits and demerits of the candidates, the Collector appointed Mahabir son of Chander (respondent No.5) as Lambardar of village Badalwala, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani, by virtue of impugned order dated 8.1.2008 (Annexure P3).
2. Dissatisfied with the order (Annexure P3), Leela Ram son of Ram Chander (petitioner) and one Ram Chander son of Kharag Singh filed their respective appeals, which were dismissed as well, by the Commissioner, Hisar Division (respondent No.3), by way of impugned order dated 6.11.2008 (Annexure P4). Sequelly, the revision petitions filed by them were also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.2), by means of impugned order dated 20.7.2011 (Annexure P5).
3. 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.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire C.W.P.No.22089 of 2011 -2- matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition.
5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No.5, so, the authorities below committed a legal mistake to appoint him (respondent No.5) on the indicated post of Lambardar, lacks merit.
6. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that 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.
7. As is evident from the record that, the Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer (C) recommended the name of Mahabir (respondent No.5) for appointment on the post of Lambardar. He is 54 years of age and has passed 10th class. He is ex serviceman and has 65 kanals 4 marlas of land.
8. Having considered the pros and cons of the candidature of the candidates, the Collector appointed respondent No.5 as Lambardar, vide impugned order (Annexure P3), which, in substance, is as under:-
"I have heard both the parties at length and after gone (sic.going) through the file carefully. I have reached on this conclusion that Sh.Mahabir candidate is appropriate person for the post of Lamberdar because this candidate is 54 years healthy and disciplined person. This candidate is matric pass. His character is good. This candidate has 65 kanals 4 marla land. Instead of this candidate is disciplined person being an exservicema, Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer (C), Tosham recommended this candidate for Lamberdar. Whereas second candidate Sh.Leela is healthy man of 25 years. He is 10+2 pass and he has 28 kanal 6 marla land but he is a un experienced person. Whereas this candidate is more eligible than second candidate. Therefore, on the basis of abovesaid facts Sh.Mahabir son of Chander is appointed as Lamberdar of village Badalwala in place of deceased Lamberdar. Certificate of Lamberdari be issued. File be consigned to record room after due compliance."C.W.P.No.22089 of 2011 -3-
9. 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 Mahabir (respondent No.5) as Lambardar.
10. Not only that, the choice of the Collector was further upheld by the Commissioner (Annexure P4) and the Financial Commissioner, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P5).
11. 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 direction.
12. Meaning thereby, the authorities below have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. 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.
13. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner.
14. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such.
(Mehinder Singh Sullar) 29.11.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter ?Yes/No