Serial No. 145 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM No. 2457/2025 Fayaz Ahmed Sheikh …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Firdous Tak, Advocate Vs UT of J&K & Ors. .…. Respondent(s)

Through: Ms. Nazia Fazal, Assisting Counsel vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE

ORDER

(29.04.2025)

01. By virtue of an order No. 153-63/TW/Gen dated

25.02.2023 eight persons came to be appointed though on temporary basis as lambardars for respective villages till the process for permanent appointment of lambardars was to be carried out or till further orders.

02. The petitioner was one of eight lambardars so appointed for village Margi. On the basis of said appointment, the petitioner is said to have assumed the post and duty of lambardar of Village Margi.

03. The petitioner has come to suffer loss of his engagement as lambardars of village Margi on account of an order passed by the Tehsildar Warwan vide order No. TW/Gen/2024-25/363 dated 29.03.2025 while purportedly acting on a complaint received from one Bahsir Ahmed Lone resident of Village Margi against the petitioner’s work as lambardar of village Margi and consequently an inquiry came to be set up resulting in an inquiry report by the Naib Tehsildar-Inshan Shri Baj Singh who recommended the removal of the petitioner on the basis of public opinion holding the petitioner’s business activities in the said village rendering him undeserving of continuing with the position of lambardar.

04. Tehsildar Warwan, acting on his own authority, ordered the immediate removal of petitioner as lambardar of village Margi and submitted the removal for conformity of the Deputy Commissioner, Kishtwar, leaving the petitioner aggrieved alleging that the petitioner has been victimized by the Tehsildar Warwan by denying opportunity of hearing and explaining his position before acting upon the purported enquiry report by the Naib Tehsildar.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Rule 9 of Lambardari Rules, 1980 which provides the power to a Collector in the matter of effecting a dismissal of a lambardar on the contingencies as enlisted from ‘a’ to ‘f’

which are reproduced below:-

a) he incurs any of the disqualification mentioned in rule 3;

b) he mortgages his holding or a part thereof, as the case may be;

c) he fails to render assistance to a public servant in the discharge of his duties within his constituency;

d) he is unfit to discharge his duties owing to physical or mental incapacity or remains absent from his place of residence consecutively for a period of six months;

e) he takes part in any agitation against the Government or fails to give active support to the Government functionary;

f) his holding is attached on account of arrears of land revenue or for any other sum recoverable from him.

06. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the best, Tehsildar Warwan could have made a recommendation for dismissal of the petitioner for Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Kishtwar to accept or reject but not to take upon himself the authority to divest the petitioner of his status as lambardar of village Margi.

07. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a judgment of Coordinate Bench passed in a case bearing WP(C) No. 2876/2023 titled “Mir Mohd. Vs. UT of J&K’ involving identical point and interpretation of Rule 9 of Lambadari Rules, 1980.

08. Prime-facie case is made out.

09. Issue notice to the respondents in the main petition and in the CMP as well.

10. Ms. Nazia Fazal, Assisting Counsel appearing vice Mrs.

Monika Kohli, learned senior AAG accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

11. Let a reply be filed by the respondents by or before the next date of hearing.

12. List on 08.07.2025.

13. Meantime, the operation of the Communication cum Order No. TW/Gen/2024-25/363 dated 29.03.2025 of Tehsildar Warwan, shall only amount to recommendation for the Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Kishtwar to consider and act upon and not to be read as immediate remo