Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajit Singh vs The Financial Commissioner (Revenue) on 2 November, 2011
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
C.W.P.No.8686 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.8686 of 2010
Date of Decision:-2.11.2011
Ajit Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Jatinder Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.C.S.Brar, D.A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr.Sheery K.Singla, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The contour of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that, in the wake of death of Sarwan Singh son of Ganda Singh, the post of Lambardar of village Akbarpur, Tehsil and District Roopnagar, had fallen vacant. To begin with, four persons, namely, Hazara Singh son of Aasa Ram (respondent No.4), Ajit Singh son of Sarwan Singh (petitioner), Dalbir Singh son of Jaswinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh son of Santokh Singh applied, but subsequently, only two candidates, namely, Ajit Singh (petitioner) and Hazara Singh (respondent No.4) pursued and lodged their respective claims for the indicated post of Lambardar.
2. Having completely ignored the merits, only taking into consideration the conduct of respondent No.4 in the Court and considering the hereditary claim of petitioner, the District Collector (respondent No.3) appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the village, by virtue of order dated 5.11.2008 (Annexure P4).
3. Dissatisfied with the order (Annexure P4), Hazara Singh respondent No.4 filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Commissioner (Appeal) C.W.P.No.8686 of 2010 -2- Patiala Division (respondent No.2), by means of order dated 20.4.2009 (Annexure P5).
4. Again aggrieved by the order (Annexure P5), respondent No.4 filed the revision petition (Annexure P6), which was accepted and the matter was remitted back to the District Collector by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab (respondent No.1), by way of impugned order dated 23.2.2010 (Annexure P7).
5. The petitioner did not feel satisfied with the impugned order (Annexure P7) and preferred the instant writ petition, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition.
7. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the Financial Commissioner has committed a legal mistake in remanding the matter, so, the impugned order (Annexure P7) is illegal, is neither tenable nor the observations of this Court in CWP, bearing No.4455 of 2008 titled as "Gurlal Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab, decided on 7.8.2008 are at all applicable to the facts of the instant case, wherein, the Commissioner, while appointing the Lambardar, has analyzed the comparative merits of both the candidates. It was observed that the petitioner (therein) was young in age, matric passed and owns 233 kanals 11 marlas of land, whereas Baljinder Singh-respondent No.2 (therein) owns less land and is less qualified than Gurlal Singh petitioner. On the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of that case, it was observed that the Financial Commissioner was not justified in remanding the case for inviting fresh applications for better choice. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the present controversy.
C.W.P.No.8686 of 2010 -3-
8. As is evident from the record, that neither the District Collector nor the Commissioner considered the respective pros and cons of both the candidates and just ignored the claim of respondent No.4 on the ground of his misconduct before the Collector and only considering the hereditary claim, appointed the petitioner as Lambardar in a very casual manner. Here, to me, they have slipped into a deep legal error in this respect. The mere fact that the behaviour of respondent No.4 before the District Collector was not upto the mark, ipso facto, is not a cogent ground to ignore his candidature. The District Collector and Commissioner ought to have considered the other merits and de-merits of the candidates and were legally required to indicate the valid reasons for arriving at correct conclusion in the right perspective, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties. Every action of such statutory authorities must be informed by reasons. The order must be fair, clear, reasonable and in the interest of justice and fair play. Every order must be confined and structured by rational and relevant material on record because the valuable rights of the parties are involved. Not only that, they have ignored the vital facts that (i) petitioner Ajit Singh has attested the sale deed executed by Netar Singh in the year 2004, (ii) he was actually appointed as Lambardar in the year 2008 only and (iii) pendency of criminal case against him, with impunity.
9. In this manner, the District Collector did not exercise his power judiciously and has not considered the respective pros and cons of the contesting parties. Sequelly, the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner in a routine manner. The error committed by the District Collector and Commissioner was rectified by the Financial Commissioner by directing the Collector to consider and verify the facts, vide impugned order (Annexure P7), the operative part of which is (para 4) as under:-
"4. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments propounded by both counsel. I find that respondent Ajit Singh as Lambardar witnessed sale deed executed by Netar Singh in the year 2004 whereas Ajit Singh was actually C.W.P.No.8686 of 2010 -4- appointed as Lambardar in the year 2008 only. I am of the considered view that such a person who believes and indulge in wrong attestation cannot be considered a fit candidate for the post of Lambardar. Further a criminal case is also pending against him. I, therefore, find it a fit case for remand to District Collector to verify all these facts and invite fresh application for the appointment of Lambardar of village Akbarpur, after fresh Mushtari Munadi."
10. 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 order (Annexure P7) is illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant behalf.
11. Meaning thereby, the Financial Commissioner has recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is 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 order (Annexure P7) deserves to be and is hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
12. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
13. In the light of aforementioned reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of subsequent hearing, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such.
14. Needless to mention here is that nothing recorded herein above would reflect, in any manner, on the merits of the case, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition.
(Mehinder Singh Sullar) 2.11.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No