A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 17(ii) -- Appointment of Lambardar – Hereditary claim -- Contended that the petitioner being son of the deceased Lambardar has hereditary claim to the post – Hereditary claim is unconstitutional, argument raised is without any force, rejected.

(Para 5, 6)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Appointment of the Lambardar is prerogative of the Collector and even if there are two views possible, then the view taken by the Collector should not be discarded -- Collector is the prime authority for deciding the most suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar and his order cannot be interfered unless the same suffers from material perversity.

(Para 6, 7)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age of candidate -- For the appointment of Lambardar, age of the candidate is a relevant factor.

(Para 7)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Collector is the main authority for appointment of the Lambardar -- It is the Collector, who not only appreciates the antecedents of all the candidates in the fray, but also personally interacts with them -- Subjective satisfaction of the Collector cannot be ignored in a cavalier manner.

(Para 7)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Recommendation by revenue officer – Binding or not -- On evaluation of the inter se merits of all the candidates, the Collector found respondent No.4 to be the most meritorious and suitable candidate and thus, appointed him as Lambardar of the Village -- Report of the Assistant Collector 1st & 2nd Grade and the Sub Divisional Magistrate in which name of the petitioner was recommended to the Collector for appointment are to be taken into consideration but the same do not confer any right on the concerned candidate to be appointed as Lambardar of the Village -- Respondent No.4 was younger in age than the petitioner – No perversity in the orders passed by the Collector, Appellate and Revisional Authorities – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 4-7)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Qualification/ Intelligence – Cholice of Collector -- On the evaluation of inter se merits of all the candidates, respondent No.4 was found to be more meritorious and was appointed as lambardar of the village, which was upheld by the Appellate and Revisional Authority as well -- Qualification wise though respondent No.4 was found to be less educated than the petitioner, however he was found to be more matured and intelligent by the Collector -- Choice of the Collector cannot be interfered unless the same suffers from any perversity – No perversity in the impugned orders passed – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 8, 9)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 22 Rules 3 & 4 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Legal representative -- Once the appointed Lambardar has died, it is obvious that de novo process for the appointment of the Lambardar needs to be initiated by making fresh munadi --  In view of the provisions of Order 22 Rules 3 & 4 CPC, the applicants in the application do not have any surviving right to sue in place of the petitioner -- Application filed for impleadment of the LRs is not maintainable.

(Para 8-13)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Age of candidate -- On comparison of the inter se merits of all the candidates in the fray, ld. Collector found the petitioner to be more meritorious and thus, appointed him as Lambardar of the Village -- Petitioner was 12 years younger in age than respondent No.5 – If the inter se merits of the candidates are otherwise at par then the candidate younger in age should be preferred -- Choice of the Collector cannot be interfered in a cavalier manner -- Appointment upheld by the Commissioner, however, the Financial Commissioner set aside the order without disclosing any perversity in the order passed by the Collector – Order passed by Financial Commissioner set aside.

(Para 6-9)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner had appointed different candidates as Lambardar of village -- Settled law is that the Collector is the prime authority for appointing a Lambardar – A learned Single Judge considered the entire matter and remanded the same to the Collector for a fresh decision as to who should be appointed as Lambardar of village -- No error, factual or legal, in the impugned judgment warranting any interference.

(Para 3, 4)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age – Qualification – Choice of Collector -- Petitioner though is younger in age and more qualified than respondent No.4 but respondent No.4 has served in the Army -- Respondent No.4 is 60 years of age and 8th pass -- No minimum qualification required for appointment of Lambardar -- As per Mandate of Rule 15, respondent No.4 has been found to be the most suitable candidate for the post -- All the authorities have given a concurrent finding – Choice of the Collector should not be disturbed in a cavalier manner -- No merit in the petition, dismissed.

(Para 5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Bail – Life and liberty -- Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception – This principle finds its roots in one of the most distinguished fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Though the underlying objective behind detention of a person is to ensure easy availability of an accused for trial, without any inconvenience, however, in case the presence of an accused can be secured otherwise, then detention is not compulsory.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Bail – Speedy trial -- Life and liberty -- Right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained person -- However, while deciding application for regular bail, the Courts shall also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal jurisprudence, which is “the presumption of innocence”, besides the gravity of offence(s) involved.

(Para 6)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is involved in two other criminal cases, however, petitioner has been granted the concession of bail in one case, the other FIR is under RP (UP) Act -- Co-accused, from whom mobile has been recovered, has been enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court -- Trial is at its initial stage and is not likely to conclude anytime soon, as out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, none has yet been examined -- Therefore, keeping the petitioner behinds the bars, who has undergone incarceration of 6 months 6 day would serve no purpose – Bail allowed.

(Para 10)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 19-B -- Appointment of SC Lambardar -- Christian candidate – Eligibility of -- Respondent No.4 belongs to the Christian community, as per mandate of Rule 19-B, he was eligible -- Collector hold respondent No.4 ineligible -- Commissioner set aside the order and remanded the case for decision afresh -- Financial Commissioner upheld the order of remand – Held, order passed by the District Collector suffered from perversity, rightly set aside -- District Collector directed to decide expeditiously within a period of three months.

(Para 5-7)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Appointing authority of -- Collector is the prime authority for the appointment of Lambardar and he is in a better situation to assess the candidature of all the candidates in fray taking into consideration their overall merits and demerits.

(Para 7)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age of candidate – Consideration of -- A candidate who is younger in age should be given the preference.

(Para 7)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- On the comparison of the inter-se merits, name of respondent No.5 was recommended by the SDM and the Naib Tehsildar and finally the Collector appointed him as a Lambardar  -- Appeal and revision of the petitioner challenging the appointment dismissed – Held, choice of the Collector should not be disturbed in a cavalier manner -- It is the Collector, who not only appreciates the record of the candidates but also personally interacts with them – No perversity in the conclusion drawn by the Collector and thereafter, affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities  -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 7-10)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – One candidate -- Fresh munadi -- Petitioner is the grandson of the deceased Lambardar -- There were only three applications received and the rest candidates did not remain in fray and thus, the petitioner was the only available candidate -- View taken by the learned Financial Commissioner in accepting the revision and remanding the case for appointment of Lambardar by making fresh Munadi is well reasoned order passed to meet the ends of justice by providing fair opportunity to all the interested candidates of the village.

(Para 5)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Appointment of Lambardar – FIR against appointed candidate – Non-consideration of – Effect of – Petitioner was younger in age and was more qualified – Nothing adverse found against the petitioner -- FIR u/s 325, 323, 148, 149 of IPC was found to have been registered against the respondent No.5 (appointed candidate) though was acquitted – FIR has not been dealt with by respondent-authorities while arriving at the final decision – Impugned orders suffer from perversity, set aside – Case remanded back to the Collector for deciding afresh.

(Para 6, 7)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Two candidates -- Fresh process -- One candidate was 33 years of age and was BA pass and had 2 acres land in the Village whereas the other was 41 years of age who had passed BA and MA Part-1 and had 01 acre of land in Kharar -- It was found by the Collector that due to the ongoing pandemic, the applications received were not sufficient keeping in view the total population of the area, fresh process was ordered – No perversity in the findings -- Collector directed to initiate the fresh procedure and conclude the same expeditiously.

(Para 3)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Nambardar – Age of candidate – Land holding – Consideration of -- Choice of the Collector should not be disturbed -- It is the Collector, who not only appreciate the record of the candidates but also personally interacts with the candidates – Appointed Nambardar is also younger in age – For the appointment of Nambardar, age of the candidate is a relevant factor -- Holding of land is one of the parameters for the examination of the merits of the candidates, however, the same cannot be the sole ground for the rejection of the candidate, if the Collector finds the candidate otherwise meritorious and more suitable – Appointment upheld.

(Para 7)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – FIR against candidate – Consideration of -- Subjective satisfaction of the Collector in the appointment of Lambardar has to be given due weightage and should not be normally interfered -- If there appears to be some ignorance regarding appreciation of inter-se merits, then the Collector should be given another opportunity to re-appreciate the merits of the candidates -- Petitioner was appointed by Collector stated to be involved in criminal activities as he is facing prosecution in three FIRs – View taken by the Appellate Court in remanding the case to the Collector for decision afresh could have served the interest of justice, however, by directing the Collector to appoint respondent No.2 the Lambardar of the Village defeated the very purpose – Orders of Ld. Commissioner directing the Collector to appoint respondent No.2 as Lambardar of the village set aside.

(Para 5-7)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Travelling abroad – Candidature of -- Though travelling abroad is not a disqualification for the appointment as Lambardar but the petitioner has remained abroad for a considerable time -- Collector appointed respondent no.4 as Lambardar -- Availability of the Lambardar in the village is always essential and hence the decision of the Collector was rational in the fitness of the circumstances.

(Para 4)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of lambardar – Age of candidate -- Inter-se merits were compared and the petitioner was virtually double of the age of respondent No.4 and the petitioner was less qualified, however, Collector appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the village -- In the appeal, respondent No.4 being younger in age and more qualified, was found more suitable -- Commissioner and Financial Commissioner have rightly remanded the case to the Collector for decision afresh – Reappreciation of the case afresh would also meet the ends of justice.

(Para 5-7)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Choice of the Collector cannot be interfered in a cavalier manner and the same has to be given weightage unless and until there are some serious discrepancies in the appointment made by the learned Collector.

(Para 7)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Illegal possession of Panchayat land – New ground at Appellate stage -- At the time of appointment it had not been brought to the notice of the Collector that respondent No. 4 was in illegal possession of the Panchayat land -- It is a settled principle of law that consideration has to be seen at the time of appointment -- At that point of time, on merits, respondent No. 4 was appointed by the District Collector – Divisional Commissioner set aside the order and appointed appellant as Lambardar inspite of his limited jurisdiction by giving preference for his personal opinion and not on account of the fact that there was an illegality in the order of the District Collector, which could be only the ground as such for interference -- Financial Commissioner, Revenue corrected the said error and hence, the ld. Single Judge has rightly upheld the order of the Financial Commissioner -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 2, 8-12)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Application after cut-off date – Fresh munadi -- Issue of validity of candidature was also subject matter before the Collector in appeal -- However, no order was passed on the same and the case was decided on merits considering the qualifications of both the candidates -- Financial Commissioner set aside appointment and order for fresh munadi – Ld. Single Judge declined to interfere -- Order of the F.C and the ld. Single Judge do not suffer from any infirmity, appeal dismissed.

(Para 1, 5-8)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Single candidate  -- Fresh munadi -- Being the sole candidate, the petitioner’s name was recommended by the Assistant Collector, and Sub-Divisional Officer (C) -- However, the Collector ordered a fresh munadi as two additional applications were received after the cut-off date – Held, in such a situation, it would be the discretion of the Collector either to appoint him or to order a fresh munadi -- Collector has chosen the latter option and the said action cannot be said to be perverse.

(Para 1-3)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Acquittal in criminal case -- 5th respondent was the choice of the Collector -- Criminal case was registered against respondent no. 5 on the allegation of having interfered with the duties of a public servant -- Police could not substantiate the allegations in the investigation and, thus, filed an untraced report -- It cannot be said that a stigma was cast on the character of the 5th respondent -- Possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out especially during elections – Thus, the appellate Court was not justified in interfering with the order of the Collector -- Interference made has been corrected by the Financial Commissioner – Writ challenging appointment of respondent no. 5 as Lambardar dismissed.

(Para 4)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Acquittal in criminal case -- Petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector -- Financial Commissioner set aside his appointment inter alia on the ground of being involved in a criminal case – Held, being involved in a case under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956 creates a doubt about the character of the petitioner and the same should have been kept in view while deciding the case of the lambardari -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Acquittal in FIR case -- Collector refused  to appoint the petitioner as Lambardar by saying even though he had been acquitted, stigma remained on his character – Judgment of acquittal shows that there appeared to be a fight between two factions in the village resulting in the registration of FIR -- Petitioner was not named therein and was summoned as an accused at a later stage -- Prosecution could not identify the accused -- Thus, all of them were acquitted – Held, allegations in the criminal case did not reflect upon the character of the petitioner and to hold to the contrary is a perversity -- Writ petition allowed, impugned orders set aside, matter remanded to the Collector for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 15, 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Appointing authority for Lambardar – Power of Appellate/ Revisional authority -- Powers for appointment of a Lambardar have been conferred upon the Collector alone and not on the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority -- Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority has the jurisdiction and power to set aside such appointment of the Lambardar by the Collector, however, the competent authority for appointing a Lambardar is none other than the Collector -- Matter thus has to be remanded back to the Collector for fresh consideration of the candidature of the eligible applicants for the post of Lambardar, who were available at the time of consideration.

(Para 5)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Collusive proclamation – Writ jurisdiction -- Merely because one of the applicants was the father of the petitioner collusion cannot be inferred -- Two other candidates had also applied and there is no evidence that either of them was closely related to the petitioner – Petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by Collector, upset by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner – Writ allowed, impugned orders set quashed and appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar is upheld.

(Para 2-5)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Letters Patent Appeal -- Appointment of Lambardar -- No disqualification assigned to appointment of respondent No. 5 -- Appellant is more meritorious on all aspects including education, land as also the standing that itself would not be a ground for setting aside the appointment of respondent No. 5 when there is no illegality in the process of appointment.

(Para 6)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Letters Patent Appeal -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Hereditary claim – Comparative merit, apart from the other characteristics of a person, has been taken note of by the Collector while assessing the comparative status of the candidates while making an appointment -- Hereditary aspect, was not the sole consideration, appointed candidate had been helping his uncle in performing the duties of the Lambardar and, therefore, would be conversant with the procedure – All the revenue authorities found the appointment in accordance with law – Held, comparative merit cannot be assessed by the Court nor can the Court act as an appellate authority – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 7-9)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Acquittal in criminal case -- Merely because there has been an acquittal in the criminal matter, it does not give a clean chit to the appellant -- Registration of case in itself cannot be a ground for not considering the case of the appellant especially when he has been acquitted prior to the date of appointment -- What is required to be taken note of by the Collector is the effect of such a case having been registered and the resultant acquittal thereof.

(Para 7)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Criminal case against candidates – Non-consideration by Collector – This would be a relevant consideration which has been kept open for the Collector to go into and form his own opinion – Remand order upheld.

(Para 1-4)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 16(1)(f) -- Conviction of Lambardar u/s 420, 467 & 468 IPC – Release on probation – Moral turpitude -- Dismissal of Lambardar – Held, Rule 16(1)(f) provides for dismissal even on account of conviction in a case involving moral turpitude -- Petitioner has been convicted in a case of cheating and forgery and the same involves moral turpitude -- Thus, the authorities below were justified in dismissing the petitioner.

(Para 1-3)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Pendency of revision before Financial Commissioner – Stay declined -- Writ jurisdiction -- Petitioner confines his prayer for a direction to the Financial Commissioner to decide the pending revision petition – Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the concerned Financial Commissioner to dispose of the pending revision petition as early as possible and in any case within a period of one year.

(Para 1-4)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 – Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – One candidate for post – Fresh munadi – Legality of -- Total three candidates had applied but two had withdrawn their candidature and, accordingly, the matter was remanded for a fresh munadi so that more candidates could apply and a meritorious candidate could be selected -- Appellate and revisional authorities refused to interfere as there is no perversity -- Writ petition has no merit, dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age of candidate – Relevance of – Argued that age of the petitioner actually was 53 years at the relevant time but has been noted as 76 years by the Collector – Held, this would not amount to be perversity that vitiates the order -- Actual reason given for appointment of the private respondent is that he is an Ex-serviceman and deserves benefit for the same -- This factor has weighed with the appellate as well the revisional Courts and, thus, no interference is called for in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -- Writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.

(Para 3-5)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Allegation of cheating -- Choice of the Collector must be respected unless the same is shown to be perverse and illegal -- Allegation that the appellant had taken an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- for making arrangement to avail loan but when the same did not fructify, the money was also not being returned and at this stage a complaint was filed against the appellant before the Inspector General of Police -- Compromise was entered into and an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- was returned by the appellant -- This being based upon the documentary evidence has gone against the appellant while the revenue authorities have considered the claim of the appellant – Court did not find any justifiable ground for interfering with the well-reasoned order passed by the revenue authorities, which have been rightly approved by the learned Single Judge – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 9-11)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age of candidate – Relevance of -- Appointed candidate is 65 years old and petitioner is 43 years old -- Appeal and revision against appointment dismissed – Held, it is settled law that the choice of the Collector has to be preferred unless and until the same is shown to be perverse -- Respondent No.6 being appointed, even though, 65 years of age and older to the petitioner, cannot be termed to be a perversity – Writ Court does not sit in appeal over orders passed by the authorities below and does not re-appraise the respective merits of the parties -- Thus, the impugned orders do not call for any interference -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 2-4)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Husband of petitioner was Lambardar – Non-consideration of -- It is settled law that the choice of the Collector must be respected unless and until the same is found to be perverse -- Just because the husband of the petitioner was a Lambardar, it cannot be presumed that she has better knowledge of lambardari duties -- In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the concerned Court is only required to go into patent procedural illegalities or perversities -- It is not essential for the Court to consider each and every argument raised because appellate jurisdiction is not being exercised – No ground to interfere with the order passed by the Financial Commissioner -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 3-5)

Constitution of India, Article 309 – Appointment on compassionate ground – Pay Scale different than regular appointee – Permissibility of -- Once a person is appointed on a particular post, maybe on compassionate ground, that person is entitled to the pay-scale of the same post -- There cannot be two different pay-scales for the employee appointed on compassionate ground and the employee appointed on regular basis.

(Para 2-3)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Appointment of Lambardar – FC passed order to start proceedings afresh -- Power of -- Financial Commissioner can remand the case for starting proceedings afresh only in two situation:- (a) the proper procedure was not followed and (b) none of the parties is eligible or suitable -- Financial Commissioner has returned a finding that none of the parties were suitable and thus, he did not commit any error. Gurlal Singh’s case 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 792 relied.

(Para 4)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Quashing of FIR on compromise – Effect of -- It makes no difference whether the FIR is registered was pending on the date of the application or not -- Quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise does not absolve the petitioner so far as appointment to the post of Lambardar is concerned because the fact remains that he had committed a crime and is not a clean person -- Thus, the Commissioner was justified in setting aside the appointment.

(Para 4)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Appeal and stay application before FC – Non-decision upon – Writ petition -- Appeal came up for preliminary hearing on 02.02.2021 but was adjourned to 20.04.2021 as the said officer did not hold the Court on that day – Application for preponement was listed on 23.02.2021, but has again been adjourned to 20.04.2021 -- Petition disposed of with directions that the stay application be heard and decided on 20.04.2021 by the learned Financial Commissioner -- In case there is any exigency in holding the Court on 20.04.2021, then the order be passed on the said application within a period of one week thereafter.

(Para 1, 2, 5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Commissioner reversed the order of DC – FC upheld the appointment made by DC by setting aside Commissioner’s order -- Ld. Single Judge uphold the order of FC by saying that although the petitioner is younger in age by few years and is a matriculate with ownership of the land also on the higher side vis-à-vis respondent No.6 but respondent No.6 carries more personal influence and has been an ex-member of the Gram Panchayat from 1992 to 1996 and has also worked as an authorized Sarpanch in the year 1996-97 -- Villagers have also given Panchnama in favour of respondent No.6 and these factors have weighed in the mind of the District Collector while appointing respondent No.6 as Lambardar -- Further, in the absence of any illegality, perversity or mala fide in the exercise of power by the District Collector, such exercise of choice by him/her is uncalled for, which is the settled law – Held, order of learned Single Judge and FC being based upon the settled proposition of law do not call for any interference in the appeal.

(Para 5, 6)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Criminal case – Clean antecedents – Consideration of -- FIR registered against the petitioner u/s 323, 324, 341, 379, 34 IPC on 3.9.2009 much prior to the post of 'Lambardar' having fallen vacant on 5.11.2012 – Acquittal in the above-said case was on 1.2.2018 i.e. much later than the appointment of respondent No.4 as 'Lambardar' vide impugned order dated 20.5.2014 – Even if the petitioner possesses better educational qualification and bigger chunk of land than appointed candidate, appointing authority is supposed/required to select the candidates having clean antecedents – No illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned orders – Writ petition, being sans any merit, deserves dismissal.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Reversed by Commissioner, affirmed by FC – Challenge to -- Writ jurisdiction -- Authorities below have compared a number of aspects between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 before approving the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Lambardar of the village -- Not only respondent No. 4 is younger in age but is better qualified than the petitioner -- Authorities below are the better judge with regard to the appointment to the post of Lambardar by evaluating the candidates, who were claiming appointment against the said post -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 3-5)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Reversed by Commissioner, affirmed by FC – Driver – Candidature of -- Writ jurisdiction -- Objection that Respondent No. 4 is a driver by profession and hardly remains in the village is being raised for the first time -- Same cannot be taken into account to interfere with the orders -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 6)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar by DC – Appeals against appointment dismissed -- In revision appointed candidate wish to discontinue as headman -- Authorities are required to issue fresh advertisement.

(Para 5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15, 20 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of Lambardar by Collector affirmed by Commissioner and reversed by Financial Commissioner – Legality of -- Private respondent is Ex-serviceman served 30 years with the CRPF -- Petitioner had himself on an earlier occasion ignored twice by the Collector, due to his employment in the Sugar Mill and for the same post had been conveniently overlooked -- Private respondent was ignored on the ground that two FIRs had been registered against him and acquittal was on the basis of compromise between the parties -- Present petitioner was appointed on account of being 45 years of age and B.A. pass in comparison and owning 4 acres 3 kanals 15 marlas of land, whereas private respondent was a Matriculate only and owned only 2 acres 5 kanals and 12 marlas of land -- Issue of easy availability for the convenience of the general public is another aspect -- Financial Commissioner has rectified the illegality of law by setting aside the appointment of the petitioner -- It cannot be said that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner suffers from any infirmity or irregularity, which would warrant interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 4-13)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Non-challenge to before Commissioner – Held, once the petitioner accepted the order of the Collector, he cannot now turn around and submit that he was to be given an opportunity to be heard on merits and contest the case against the private respondent -- Thus, he now cannot contend that the matter should be remanded for inviting fresh applications, so that he can also contest on merits.

(Para 14)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Long pendency of Revision/Stay application -- R.O.R. pending since 22.05.2019 -- Financial Commissioner is directed to consider on merits the appeal and the stay application and pass appropriate orders -- In the event the appellate authority is not in a position to dispose of the main appeal immediately, the stay application filed therein shall be considered expeditiously on merits not later than two weeks by affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15, 16 -- Removal of Lambardar – Challenge to – Fresh appointment – Effect of -- In the proceedings there was a challenge to the removal of the petitioner from the post of Lambardar -- At no point of time, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Financial Commissioner, there was any stay as regards the fresh appointment of Lambardar -- Collector, appointed respondent No.5 as Lambardar -- Held, once a fresh Lambardar stands appointed, the finding that RORs filed by the petitioner had been rendered infructuous, cannot be found fault with – Doctrine of merger will not apply.

(Para 11-14)