Vijay Kumar v. Financial Commissioner Pb & Ors

¶2Briefly, on account of demise of Sh. Sohan Singh, previous Lambardar  of  Village Panchhat, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala; proceedings for filling up the said vacancy were initiated. In pursuance thereof, six applications (including the one submitted by the petitioner and the other submitted by respondent No.4) were received.

2.1 The learned Naib Tehsildar, Phagwara; Tehsildar, Phagwara as well as learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phagwara recommended the name of respondent No.4 (Joga Singh) for appointment to the post of Lambardar.

2.2 Thereafter,   the   matter   was   forwarded   the   learned   District Collector, Kapurthala, who vide its order dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure P-2), appointed respondent No.4 (Joga Singh) as Lambardar of Village Panchhat.

¶3Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order (Annexure P-2), the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner,  Jalandhar Division,   Jalandhar,   which   was   allowed   vide   order   dated  19.05.2014 (Annexure P-4); whereby Collector's order was set aside and petitioner (Vijay Kumar) was appointed as Lambardar of Village Panchhat, on the ground that the petitioner was younger in age and owned more land as compared to respondent No.4.

¶4Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order (Annexure P-4), respondent No.4 preferred a petition, bearing ROA No.31 of 2014, before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, which was allowed vide  order  dated  03.08.2016   (Annexure   P-7);   whereby  the  Divisional Commissioner's order (Annexure P-4) was set aside and Collector's order (Annexure P-2), appointing respondent No.4 (Joga Singh) as Lambardar of Village Panchhat; was restored. 2024.11.25 12:30 5. In the aforementioned circumstances, petitioner has filed the present   writ   petition   before   this   *ourt,   see:ing   relief(s"   as   noticed hereinabove.

¶7;eard.

¶8Here, it would be apposite to state the relative merits of the petitioner and respondent No.4 (as noticed by the learned District Collector); which can be summed up as under:- S. No. Particulars Petitioner Resp. No.4 (Vijay Kumar) (Joga Singh) 1 Age 59 years 61 years 2 Educational Matric M.A. qualification 3 Land holding/s 6 Kanal 1! Marla 2 Kanal 5 Marla " #eco$$ended %y  &ai% 'ehsildar( )hag*ara+'ehsildar( )hag*ara and ,u% -i.isional Magistrate( )hag*ara 5 #e$ar/s #etired as a 0onductor #etired as a 'eacher fro$ ).#.'.0. fro$ 1o.ern$ent ,chool

¶8Concededly, the learned District Collector, Kapurthala, upon finding respondent No.4 (Joga Singh) to be more suitable for the post of Lambardar, on the grounds that he was a retired government teacher; had studied up to M.A.; and his name was also recommended by the lower Revenue Officials; appointed him as Lambardar of Village Panchhat, vide order dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure P-2).

8.1 However, the said order (Annexure P-2) was set aside by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar vide order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-4); whereby the petitioner (Vijay Kumar) was appointed as Lambardar of Village Panchhat, only on the ground that he was younger in age and owned more land than respondent No.4.

¶9No doubt, the age of a candidate is a relevant factor for appointment to the post of Lambardar and the ;on<ble Supreme *ourt in I attest to the accuracy and "Maha ir Singh  . Khiali Ram an! others"# $%%&(') R(R ((i il) )*)( has also held that age of a candidate is a relevant factor; however, the age of a person is to be considered in the context of his physical ability and capacity to discharge his duties as a headman of the village. No such plea has been raised that respondent No.4 is incapacitated from discharging the functions of a Lambardar, in view of his age. There is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that any complaint was made against him that he is not able to render his services properly owing to his old age. In this scenario, rejecting the claim of respondent No.4 on the ground that he is older than the petitioner, especially when he was appointed as Lambardar by the learned Collector; may amount to injustice to him. Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in  "Ram Kumar Versus The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others", 2013 (2) RCR (Civil) 1038.

¶10As far as holding of land is concerned, same is taken into consideration only for the purpose of security towards government revenue collected by the Lambardar. Respondent No.4 has about 2 Kanal-5 Marla of land, which is sufficient to be taken into consideration for the purpose of security of revenue, collected by the  Lambardar. Moreover, in case of Gurpreet   Singh   versus   Financial   Commissioner   (Revenue),   Punjab, 2017(1) RCR (Civil) 233, this Court has observed that land revenue stood abolished in both the State of Punjab and Haryana, long back, thus owning land by the candidates for the post of Lambardar would not be of much significance any further.

¶11Moreover, it is well settled that in the matter of appointment of Lambardar, the choice of learned Collector is not to be lightly interfered with, even if two views are possible; as held by a Division Bench of this Court in "Kuldip Singh vs Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab", 2024.11.25 12:30 2016(1) RCR (Civil) 273. $#. %hat apart,  I have also gone through order dated 03.08.2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab; the relevant extract whereof reads as under:-" -x -x -

¶6I have heard both the parties in this regard. What is important to see the grounds on which learned Commissioner has passed orders. This is important because in this case the District Collector has passed a detailed order after considering the merits and demerits of all the candidates which were available in this case. The Ld. Commissioner has passed his order primarily on two grounds, firstly that the respondent is younger in age and secondly that respondent owns more land in the Village. Going by the orders of the District Collector, he has clearly mentioned that the petitioner Joga Singh is MA, B.Ed. retired Teacher, Red Cross Certificate awardee and his name is recommended by Naib stTehsildar, Tehsildar and SDM-cum-Assistant Collector 1 Grade, Phagwara. The Collector has seen almost all the aspects in respect of all the candidates and after evaluating the merits and demerits has passed the detailed order. Resultantly, I do not find that the order of the learned Commissioner for setting aside the order of the District Collector, Gurdaspur is based on sound reasoning. The orders of the District Collector should not be interfered unless any major irregularities are found. Undoubtedly, it has to be accepted that when the merit of a person for being appointed as Lambardar are well assessed by the Ground level Revenue Officials as they have better understanding and information at the ground level and are aware of the reputation, working and eligibility to shoulder the responsibility in a better manner. Unless there are legal irregularities or decisions are based on wrong facts or are violative of any law, interference from the higher authorities or courts are not desirable in such cases.

¶7In view of these reasons, I set aside the order of the authenticity of this Ld. Commissioner dated 19.05.2014 and upheld the order of District Collector dated 21.02.2011 vide which the petitioner has been appointed as Lambardar. The District Collector is further directed to take necessary action. - x - x - "

12.1 Considering the totality of circumstances, in my considered view the learned Commissioner had wrongly set aside the Collector's order. Further, the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab has rightly set aside order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar; and upheld order dated

21.02.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned District Collector, Kapurthala; whereby respondent No.4 (Joga Singh) was appointed as Lambardar of Village Panchhat, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala.

¶13There is no scope for any interference in the order dated

03.08.2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Financial Commissioner, resultantly the present writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.

¶14All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.

05.11.2024   (HARSH BUNGER) A2ur.a            JUDGE $. =hether spea:ing>reasoned ? @es> o #. =hether reportable ? @es> o