SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 2890

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
MOHAMMAD IKBAL – Appellant
Versus
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER HARYANA AND ORS – Respondent
/2012/2020



The Collector's choice of Lambardar is final and cannot be lightly interfered with unless there is perversity or illegality in the order.

Headnote:

LAMBARDAR APPOINTMENT - MERIT - JUDICIAL REVIEW - [LAMBARDAR APPOINTMENT ACT, 1952]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No.5 as Lambardar of village Chahalka, claiming that he was a better candidate. The Collector had appointed respondent No.5 based on his education, social work, financial status, and support from villagers. The Commissioner remanded the matter, finding respondent No.6 to be a better candidate. The Financial Commissioner upheld the Collector's order, finding respondent No.5 to be more meritorious and dismissing the Commissioner's observation of illegal possession of panchayat land as incorrect.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Collector's choice of Lambardar is final and cannot be lightly interfered with unless there is perversity or illegality. The Court found no infirmity or perversity in the Collector's order and upheld the appointment of respondent No.5 as Lambardar.

Issues: 1. Whether the Collector's appointment of respondent No.5 as Lambardar was valid and in accordance with law. 2. Whether the Commissioner erred in remanding the matter and finding respondent No.6 to be a better candidate. 3. Whether the Financial Commissioner erred in upholding the Collector's order and dismissing the Commissioner's observation of illegal possession of panchayat land.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The choice of the Collector in appointing a Lambardar is final and cannot be interfered with unless it suffers from infirmity or perversity. 2. The Court will not interfere with the Collector's choice even if two views are possible. 3. The Commissioner cannot lightly set aside the Collector's order and can only do so if there is perversity or illegality in the order.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Collector's appointment of respondent No.5 as Lambardar.

CWP-2012-2020

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

(103)

CWP-2012-2020

Date of decision: - 10.01.2023

Mohammad Iqbal

....Petitioner

Versus

Financial Commissioner, Department of Revenue Haryana and

others

.....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:-

Mr. Nafeesh Ahmed, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Ms. Upasana Dhawan, AAG, Haryana.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of

the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari/mandamus for

quashing the impugned order dated 06.05.2013 passed by the Assistant

Collector 1st Class, Nuh (Annexure P-2); order dated 16.07.2013

(Annexure P-8), passed by the Collector Mewat, Nuh; order dated

21.08.2014 (Annexure P-12), passed by the Commissioner Gurgaon as

well as order dated 22.05.2017 (Annexure P-14) passed by the Financial

Commissioner, Haryana, with a further prayer to appoint the petitioner as

Lambardar of village Chahalka, Tehsil Tauru, District Nuh (Mewat),

Haryana.

The brief facts of the present case are that after the death of

grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Hussain Khan, Lambardar of the

NARESH KUMAR

2023.01.17 14:34

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgement

CWP-2012-2020

-2-

village Chahalka, the process for filling up the post of Lambardar was

initiated and munadi was conducted. In pursuance of the same, nine

persons including the present petitioner as well as respondent No.5-

Nishar Ahmed and respondent No.6-Khurshid had filed their

applications for the post. One of the candidates, namely, Nafees Ahmed

had withdrawn his candidature in favour of respondent No.5-Nishar

Ahmed. Certain candidates did not appear before the Assistant Collector,

2nd Grade, Tauru, thus, exparte proceedings were initiated and only four

candidates were ultimately in the running for the post of Lambardar. The

said four candidates included the present petitioner, respondents No.5 and

6 and one Jamshed. The Collector, after considering the merits and

demerits of the candidates, appointed respondent No.5 as the new

Lambardar. While passing order dated 16.07.2013 (Annexure P-8), it was

observed that respondent No.5 was the best candidate, inasmuch as,

respondent No.5 was a graduate and he possessed the degree of B.A. and

had studied Urdu till 12th class and was more educated than the other

candidates including the present petitioner, who had only passed class

10th and further, respondent No.4 also owned land measuring 43 kanals

and 1 marla and being a social worker, had built a water tank in the high

school of village Sundh and had also installed a hand-pump and was

given certificates of appreciation by the Aaganwadi Department,

Education Department, Animal Husbandry Department, Mining

Department and the Agriculture Department. It had also been observed

that as many as 23 persons had supported the candidature of respondent

No.5 and 34 persons had given separate appreciation certificates in favour

NARESH KUMAR

2023.01.17 14:34

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgement

CWP-2012-2020

-3-

of respondent No.5. In addition to the above, it was also found that

respondent No.5 was financially well off and apart from the land

measuring 43 kanals and 1 marla owned by him, he also had deposits of

Rs.2,16,000/- in small savings account, which was more than the other

candidates. The statement of respondent No.5, in which it was mentioned

that respondent No.5, in addition to the above, also had two plots of 575

sq. yards in the town of Tauru and a land measuring 304 square yards in

Town Punhana and a concrete house and the fact that he was

recommended by the Assistant Collector, Grade I, Nuh, vide order dated

06.05.2013 (Annexure P-2), was also taken into consideration.

Respondent No.6-Khurshid and the present petitioner challenged the said

order of the Collector by f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top