JUDGMENT :

Harsh Bunger, J. [Oral]

1. Petitioner (Ved Pal) has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Collector, Kurukshetra; order dated 12.06.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and order dated 12.10.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

2. Briefly, on demise of Sh. Bachana Ram, previous lambardar of Village Sanwala, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, the proceedings were initiated for filling up the vacancy. In pursuance to the proclamation made in the village for filling up the vacancy, three candidates i.e. the petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5, applied. The learned Collector, Kurukshetra vide order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure P-3) appointed respondent No.4-Jarnail Singh as Lambardar of Village Sanwala, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

2.1 Feeling aggrieved against the afore-said order dated 06.9.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Collector, Kurukshetra, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Ambala, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.06.2018 (Annexure P-4).

2.2 A further revision petition filed by the petitioner before the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana was also dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2023 (Annexure P-5).

2.3 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court for the relief/s, as noticed here-in-above.

3. Heard.

4. A perusal of order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Collector, Kurukshetra would show that respondent No.4-Jarnail Singh has been appointed as lambardar of Village Sanwala, considering the fact that he is more educated and has more land holding/s than the petitioner. The learned Collector's order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure P-3) has been further upheld by the learned Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala as well as by the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

5. It is well settled law that in the matter of appointment of lambardar, the choice of the learned Collector is not to be lightly interfered with, even if two views are possible, unless there is any patent illegality or perversity therein, as has been held by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kuldip Singh Versus Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab, 2016(1) RCR (Civil) 273.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. All the revenue authorities i.e. the Collector, the Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner have taken a concurrent view in favour of respondent No.4-Jarnail Singh, which are duly supported by sound reasons, therefore the same deserve to be upheld.

7. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

8. All pending applications (if any) shall also stand closed.