Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.
Harbans Singh - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
Financial Commissioner Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Punjab, Chandigarh and others - Respondents - Respondent
CWP No.3259 of 2018
Decided On : 07-10-2023
Lambardar Appointment - Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 - [Sections 466/447/465/467/468/471/120-B of IPC, 147/148/149/323 of IPC] - The court discussed the appointment of a Lambardar in a village and the legal provisions related to the appointment process. The court highlighted the importance of considering criminal cases and acquittals in the appointment process and emphasized the need for the appointing authority to consider all relevant factors before making a decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appointment of a Lambardar in a village after the death of the previous Lambardar. The District Collector appointed respondent No.4 as the Lambardar, but the petitioner challenged this decision, citing the criminal case against respondent No.4 and his own qualifications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Collector's decision suffered from perversity as it did not consider the criminal case against respondent No.4 at the time of his appointment. The court set aside the orders of the District Collector and the Financial Commissioner and remanded the case to the Collector for a fresh decision.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the appointment of the Lambardar and the consideration of criminal cases and acquittals in the appointment process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointing authority must consider all relevant factors, including criminal cases and acquittals, in the appointment process. The decision of the District Collector was found to be perverse due to the failure to consider the criminal case against respondent No.4 at the time of his appointment.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders of the District Collector and the Financial Commissioner and remanded the case to the Collector for a fresh decision.
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
1. Present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 06.12.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.1 vide which the respondent No.1 has wrongly set aside the well reasoned order dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2 and wrongly restored the order dated 28.01.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3 and to upheld the order dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2. Further prayer has been made for staying the implementation of order dated 06.12.2017 passed by respondent No.1.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on the death of earlier Lambardar, namely Harbans Singh, post of Lambardar in village Malookpur, Tehsil Nangal, District Roopnagar fell vacant. Hence, for the appointment of new Lambardar, the necessary approval was sought and mustri munadi was conducted for inviting the applications from eligible candidates. As a result, five applications from Balwinder Singh son of Husan Singh, Surjit Kaur wife of deceased Harbans Singh Lambardar, Gurcharan Singh son of Chajju Ram, Ramkes Singh son of Nanak Singh and Samrit Singh son of Ram Asra were received. Thereafter, Harbans Singh son of Jawala Singh i.e. the petitioner approached the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nangal for the appointment of Lambardar on the ground that he did not know about the mustri munadi conducted and he wanted to apply for the same. Resultantly, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nangal directed the fresh mustri munadi to be conducted and hence, the petitioner also filed his application for the appointment of Lambardar. On receipt of the applications, character verifications of all the candidates were got conducted. On the police verification, it was found that FIR No.110/04 dated 07.10.2004 was registered against Balwinder Singh i.e. respondent No.4 under Sections 466/447/465/467/468/471/120-B of IPC which was pending and FIR No.94/96 dated 04.06.1986 under Sections 147/148/149/323 of IPC was registered against Harbans Singh i.e. the petitioner in Police Station Una wherein compromise had been effected between the parties. On the comparison of interse merits of the petitioner and that of respondent No.4 by the Collector, it was found that petitioner was 54 years of age and 10th class pass and he had done the ITI in Fitter Trade. Besides this, he owned 04 kanal 10 marla of land at village Malookpur (Punjab). He also owns 2 Kanal in village Gohlani and 07 kanal of land in Malookpur, Himachal Pradesh. On the other hand, respondent No.4-Balwinder Singh was 46 years of age and he was 9th pass. Besides this, he owned 09 kanal 04 marla of land in village Malookpur (Punjab) and 03 kanal land in Malookpur (Himachal Pradesh) and has 06 kanal land in village Bela Dhiani (Punjab). Learned District Collector on the evaluation of merits and demerits of the candidates, found Balwinder Singh i.e. respondent No.4 to be more meritorious and suitable and thus, appointed him as the Lambardar of the village vide his order dated 28.01.2013. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner and two other co-applicants, namely, Gurcharan Singh and Surjit Kaur filed the appeals before the Commissioner, Roopnagar Division, Roopnagar. All the appeals were heard together by learned Commissioner and were disposed of vide his common order dated 02.12.2016. After hearing both the sides, the learned Commissioner accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner and thus, set aside the order passed by District Collector dated 28.01.2013 and appointed the petitioner to be the Lambardar of the village. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 filed the revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab i.e. respondent No.1. Learned Financial Commissioner, after hearing both the sides, accepted the revision petition filed by respondent No.4 and thus, restored the order of District Collector dated 28.01.2013 vide he
The appointing authority must consider all relevant factors, including criminal cases and acquittals, in the appointment process.
The appointment of Lambardar is an administrative act, and the Collector's selection should not be undone unless there is gross irregularity, perversity, or a patent error in the appointment. The sub....
The main legal point established is the requirement for a fair and proper appointment process, including the conduct of Munadi, to provide equal opportunity to all interested candidates for the posit....
The appointment of a Lambardar by the Collector should not be interfered with unless it is proven to be perverse or illegal.
The appointment of a Lambardar is primarily the prerogative of the Collector, whose decision should only be overturned in cases of gross irregularity or error.
The Collector's appointment of a Lambardar should not be overturned unless proven to be grossly irregular or perverse, emphasizing the importance of character in such appointments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the appointing authority should not be disturbed without a clear illegality, and the comparison of merits is a valid basis for....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
