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 – Writ allowed, impugned orders set quashed and appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar is upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.10.2022

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.10.2022

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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 12.10.2022

Appeal and stay application before FC – Non-decision upon – Writ 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.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.03.2021

Choice of Collector – Jurisdiction of Appellate Authority -- Normally, the choice of District Collector is not to be interfered with or lightly to be undone, however, it is nevertheless an appeal which is a continuation of the original proceedings – Held, if the Commissioner on the basis of relative assessment of the candidates had come to a finding to be different from that recorded by the District Collector, then the same is not liable to be interfered with unless it is shown that the same is perverse or erroneous.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2009

Writ Jurisdiction – Appointed candidate is mature person, 40 years of age, is a Matriculate, owned more land than the petitioner and was recommended by SDM, besides, 11 candidates have withdrawn in his favour and he was nephew of the deceased Lambardar and had been assisting his deceased uncle in the discharge of Lambardari functions – One of his uncle was an ex-serviceman and thereby his family had rendered service to the nation – Whereas the petitioner, is not a mature person, he had divorced his wife only after a month or so of marriage, was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which a woman had died and FIR was lodged, had taken loan from the bank and had his vote at two places – The said deficiencies did not constitute a bar in the appointment of Lambardar but did reflect adversely – Appointed candidate is more meritorious does not want interference in writ jurisdiction.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2009

Writ Jurisdiction -- The High Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction is not to sit in appeal over the findings and conclusions that have been reached at by the revenue authorities on the matter of choice of the Lambardar.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.07.2009

Choice of Collector -- Choice of Lambardar is primarily the prerogative and administrative act of the District Collector -- His selection is normally not to be undone unless and until it is shown that the same suffers from gross irregularity, perversity or there is some patent error in his appointment.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2009

Choice of Collector - Writ Jurisdiction -- High Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over the conclusions reached at by the revenue authorities in the choice of Lambardar -- This Court is not to re-appreciate the evidence and material on record and thereby re-determine as to who would be the better choice for the post of Lambardar -- Review of the quasi-judicial orders to that extent is limited.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2009

Disqualification -- Mere employment in the State Government or any of its instrumentalities is not per se a disqualification for appointment of village Lambardar.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.07.2009

Criminal case – Acquittal from -- It cannot be said that merely because an accused who has been tried in a criminal case and thereafter acquitted is yet to carry the stigma of his being tried in a criminal case -- These are circumstances which would require consideration by the authorities after examining the facts and circumstances of the case.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 06.07.2009

Revisional Jurisdiction -- District Collector appointing one of the candidate as Lambardar out of five – Another candidate challenged the order before the Commissioner in appeal, which was allowed – Three candidates neither challenged the order of Collector nor of the Commissioner – In revision, the Financial Commissioner remanded the case back to District Collector to decide the matter afresh after hearing all the five -- Held, Learned Financial Commissioner exceeded its jurisdiction – Directions given to decide the matter afresh inter-se between the two candidates.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.07.2009

Acquittal of candidate -- Lambardar is required to have a dealing with the people at large and they must have a confidence in Lambardar, which, to an extent, would get dented if someone has remained involved in a criminal case and is appointed -- Acquittal in itself would not mean that he has maintained a clean record.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.02.2009

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope of -- High Court may not be required to see the comparative merit of the case and then opine on the decision as made by the quasi-judicial authorities -- It is to be seen if the Tribunal/authorities while considering the case of the parties have committed any error in the decision making process or not.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.02.2009

Choice of Collector -- “A” was appointed Lambardar by Collector – Commissioner reversed the order and “B” was appointed Lambardar -- Financial Commissioner upheld the order of Commissioner – Held, choice exercised by the Collector can be interfered only when it is found to be exercised arbitrary, capricious or is perverse -- Nothing to show any arbitrariness in the order passed by the Collector -- No such finding by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner to arrive at different finding – Order of Commissioner and Financial Commissioner set aside and order of Collector affirmed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.01.2009

Hereditary claim -- Hereditary claim is the first aspect required to be taken into consideration.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.01.2009

Sarpanch of village – Sarpanch of a village which could have kept him busy in performing his responsibilities as Sarpanch and an added disadvantage for the post of Lambardar.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 14.01.2009

Availability in village -- Choice of Collector – Collector appointed petitioner as Lambardar, who is resident of the village but running his business at some different place in preference to candidate from different village – Held, there is no perversity, illegality or arbitrariness in the choice exercised by the Collector, once there is no perversity seen, the choice of Collector is to be preferred.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.01.2009

Comparative merits – Collector appointed a Lambardar while considering that his economic condition is good and he is Income Tax payee, he is doing diary work in the village and is always available in the village, there is no case or allegation against him and he is supported by most SC people of village and he is recommended by the Tehsildar and SDM for post SC Lambardar – Nothing improper or incorrect in determination, order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.07.2008

Qualification -- Appointed Lambardar though employed, yet his employment is seasonal and pertains only to selling fertilizer, whereas, the petitioner is a wood contractor, remains out of the village for most of the time in connection with his business -- Besides the aforesaid, appointed candidate possesses higher qualifications than the petitioner – Appointment of Lambardar upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on 03.07.2008

F.I.R. u/s 323,325 I.P.C. and money decree against a candidate – Nothing on record to show that F.I.R. resulted into conviction -- Candidate cannot be held to be a person of doubtful character and a defaulter of Bank loan and his appointment as Lambardar cannot be quashed on this ground.

(P&H HC) Decided on 18.03.2008

Money Decree and F.I.R. u/s 323,325 I.P.C. against a candidate – Nothing on record to show that F.I.R. resulted into conviction -- Candidate cannot be held to be a person of doubtful character and a defaulter of Bank loan and his appointment as Lambardar cannot be quashed on this ground.

(P&H HC) Decided on 18.03.2008

Recovery suit/Decree – F.I.R. u/s 323,325 I.P.C. and money decree against a candidate for Lambardar – Nothing on record to show that F.I.R. resulted into conviction -- Candidate cannot be held to be a person of doubtful character and a defaulter of Bank loan and his appointment as Lambardar cannot be quashed on this ground.

(P&H HC) Decided on 18.03.2008

Ex-serviceman candidate -- Respondent found to be better candidate by Collector as he was ex-servicemen and son of deceased Lambardar – Commissioner set aside the order on the ground that appointed candidate deserted his Army – Question regarding deserter from the Army was not called for as the Army had not taken any action against him – Nothing on record that respondent had ever deserted from Army – Appointment of respondent as Lambardar upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.02.2008

Choice of Collector -- Collector's order should not be interfered with unless it is shown to be illegal or perverse or lacking in jurisdiction.

(P&H HC) Decided on 31.01.2008

Criminal case -- Complaint u/s 379,409,506 read with 120-B I.P.C. in which appointed Lambardar summoned -- Mere filing of complaint against appointed Lambardar after his appointment to the post of Lambardar is not a disqualification unless the same culminates into conviction.

(P&H HC) Decided on 22.11.2007

Munadi -- Munadi was conducted by Chowkidar, which is recorded in Daily Dairy Report of the Sarpanch on 12.12.2003 – Later on production of affidavit of Chowkidar dated 20.1.2006 to the effect that he did not effect any munadi appears to be procured one – Not reliable.

(P&H HC) Decided on 22.11.2007

Qualification – Respondent is about 26 years whereas the petitioner is of about 55 years, respondent owned 4 acres 6 kanals and the petitioner is having 6 acres 2 kanals 1 marlas land, respondent is 10th pass whereas the petitioner is an illiterate person and he knows only about signing -- Collector rightly appointed respondent as the Village headman/ Lambardar.

(P&H HC) Decided on 06.11.2007

Choice of Collector -- While selecting the candidate for the post of Lambardar, it is the Collector who has to weigh and judge the comparable qualifications of the rival candidates and it is he, who has to apply and make up his own mind on the basis of record and arguments placed before him and finally deciding about the suitability of the candidate.

(P&H HC) Decided on 14.09.2007

Qualification – Lambardari Rules do not prescribe for any minimum educational qualifications for appointment of a Lambardar – Even illiterate persons can be appointed as Lambardar in the given circumstances of different cases.

(P&H HC) Decided on 14.09.2007

Qualification – Person to be appointed on the post of Lambardar should be enjoying good reputation and unblemished image besides having personal influence in the locality -- At the same time, he should also be trust-worthy, dedicated, a person of good character and ability having sincerity to duty and who could maintain the dignity of the office of Lambardar.

(P&H HC) Decided on 14.09.2007

Qualification -- Petitioner is 40 years of age has passed M.A. and owns 11 acres of land and he also motivated three cases of family planning and contributed Rs. 23,000/- in the Small Saving Scheme and carries Good Influence in the Village, whereas the rival candidate has passed 8th class – Collector’s order appointing petition as Lambardar affirmed.

(P&H HC) Decided on 14.09.2007

Qualification -- Petitioner acted as Sarbrah Lambardar for about seven years, having better financial position than respondent No. 4 and is a social worker and is taking part in all the activities for the common cause -- Respondent No. 4 indulges in groupism and party-faction -- Petitioner is liable to be appointed as Lambardar.

(P&H HC) Decided on 12.09.2007

Revision – Speaking order -- Financial Commissioner being the last authority on the revenue side, required to consider the merits and de-merits of each candidate and was supposed to pass a detailed order in support of conclusions arrived at by him.

(P&H HC) Decided on 30.08.2007

Comparative merits – Respondent was only 32 years of age, studied upto class 10 and could read and write Hindi, Punjabi and English and he was permanent resident of the village, owned 28 kanals of land and was the nephew of the deceased Lambardar -- On the hand, the petitioner was 57 years of age and owned 22 kanals of land -- Respondent was more meritorious candidate and was therefore rightly appointed as Lambardar.

(P&H HC) Decided on 02.08.2007

Power of Appellate/Revisional authority -- As a general rule, the choice of the Collector is final -- Appellate and revisional authorities would be entitled to interfere with the choice of the Collector if it is perverse -- However, instead of imposing their own perception on the merits of candidates they should remit the matter to the Collector.

(P&H HC) Decided on 29.05.2007

Power of Appellate/Revisional authority -- Commissioner if found the order of Collector is perverse, then instead of assessing the merits of the candidates and ordered for appointment of the Lambardar, he should remit the matter to the Collector for a fresh decision, in accordance with law.

(P&H HC) Decided on 29.05.2007

Choice of Collector – Challenge to -- As a general rule, the choice of a Collector, is final, except where the order discloses a lack of jurisdiction, an error of law or an error of fact so palpable, as to render his order arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable -- Selection of a Lambardar is best left to the discretion of the revenue authorities.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 21.05.2007

Appellate authority powers – A statutory duty has been conferred upon a District Collector to select a candidate for the post of Lambardar -- Choice of a Collector, is generally final, unless shown to be vitiated, for lack of jurisdiction or is held to be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious -- Appellate and revisional authorities exercising jurisdiction, under the Act, must not re-evaluate the merits of respective candidates and then seek to impose their perception of the merits of a candidate -- Any interpretation of the jurisdiction of appellate and revisional authorities other than the one assigned above would lead to judicial anarchy and never ending litigation.

(P&H HC) Decided on 08.05.2007

Revisional authority powers -- A statutory duty has been conferred upon a District Collector to select a candidate for the post of Lambardar -- Choice of a Collector, is generally final, unless shown to be vitiated, for lack of jurisdiction or is held to be arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious -- Appellate and revisional authorities exercising jurisdiction, under the Act, must not re-evaluate the merits of respective candidates and then seek to impose their perception of the merits of a candidate -- Any interpretation of the jurisdiction of appellate and revisional authorities other than the one assigned above would lead to judicial anarchy and never ending litigation.

(P&H HC) Decided on 08.05.2007

Revisional authority’s powers – ‘A’ was appointed as Lambardar by Collector – On B’s appeal, the Commissioner remitted the case back to the Collector to consider appointment afresh – ‘A’ filed revision before the Financial Commissioner and ‘B’ did not file any revision -- Financial Commissioner proceeded to assume the jurisdiction of a Collector and evaluated merits of candidates and appointed ‘B’ as Lambardar -- Financial Commissioner's order discloses a failure to exercise jurisdiction.

(P&H HC) Decided on 08.05.2007

Choice of Collector -- In the cases of appointment of Lambardar, choice of the Collector is not supposed to be interfered with, unless and until, the same is perverse in law or on facts – Collector appointed the person as Lambardar, who was not having land in his name on the date when the notification for the post for appointment of Lambardar issued – FIR u/s 376/511/323/506/34 IPC was pending against him and his family members -- Petitioner and his father, have forcibly encroached upon the Gram Panchayat's land and the same was vacated during proceedings for appointment of Lambardar -- Collector has committed an error in not noticing the important facts, when appointment was made – Appointment made by Collector is liable to be set aside.

(P&H HC) Decided on 18.04.2007

Qualification -- When process to appoint Lambardar had started, the petitioner was not having any land in his name -- During pendency of the proceedings, he got the land transferred in his own name through a decree of the civil Court -- Qualifications of the candidates are supposed to be taken note of at the time when vacancy was notified and not thereafter.

(P&H HC) Decided on 18.04.2007

Choice of Collector -- Choice made by the Collector, ordinarily, is not to be interfered with unless the same is perverse in law and on facts – Candidate appointed as Lambardar is younger in age, more educated, owner of more land and son of big landowner, kabaddi player and regular blood donor and his grandfather was also a Lambardar and he also worked as a volunteer of NSS – Allegation that at the time of appointment made by the Collector, one private criminal complaint was pending against him -- No case for interference.

(P&H HC) Decided on 29.03.2007

Choice of Collector – Ordinarily, choice of the Collector is not to be interfered with, unless the same is perverse in law and facts -- Reports made by the subordinate revenue authorities were available before the Collector – Collector should discuss the comparative merits of the candidates and then appoint Lambardar -- Superior claim of respondent was ignored merely because he was not present before the Collector -- Collector erred in appointing the petitioner as Lambardar, without discussing merits of respondent -- Commissioner, reversed the order and appointed respondent as Lambardar and further affirmed by the Financial Commissioner – Respondent is a better candidate and is a matured person, owns more land and is highly educated -- No case is made out for interference.

(P&H HC) Decided on 22.03.2007

Choice of Collector -- Choice of the Collector, in the cases of appointment of Lambardar, is not to be interfered with, unless the same is perverse in law and facts.

(P&H HC) Decided on 20.03.2007

Comparative merits – Petitioner, whose name has been recommended for Lambardar by the sub divisional Officer (civil) and the Tehsildar is not having any land in his name – Respondent seems to be better qualified because he is educated and is a land owner -- Number of people of the village have supported the case of respondent including two members of the Panchayat Samiti, which shows his influence in the village and area – Respondent rightly appointed as Lambardar.

(P&H HC) Decided on 20.03.2007

Choice of Collector -- All the revenue officers, from the Collector up to the Financial Commissioner, have found that respondent was a better candidate -- Choice of the Collector is to be interfered with only if it is perverse in law and facts.

(P&H HC) Decided on 19.03.2007

Qualification -- Respondent has the knowledge about the duties of Lambardar as he is the son of deceased Lambardar -- He is 43 years old and always available in the village – Petitioner is an aged man of 71 years – Respondent is a better candidate being young and has more land as compared to the petitioner and has rightly been appointed as Lambardar.

(P&H HC) Decided on 19.03.2007

Choice of Collector -- Choice made by the Collector, in appointing a Lambardar, is not supposed to be interfered unless the same is perverse and bad in law – In appointing respondent as Lambardar, the Collector has not appreciated that he is a person, who had gone to the extent of getting Below Poverty Line certificate despite having in his possession huge amount of money and landed property in the shape of houses etc. -- On merits also, other candidate is more meritorious -- Collector is directed to initiate process afresh, as ordered by the Commissioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on 08.03.2007

Choice of the Collector -- It is the duty cast on the Collector who is head of the revenue district to weigh the comparative merit of the candidates who have applied for the position of Lambardar – Collector finds respondent to be more meritorious than the petitioner -- It may be true that another officer in the position of Collector might have picked up the petitioner on the position of Lambardar on the basis of his own opinion but that cannot constitute a basis for the High Court to substitute the same by its opinion -- It is well settled that this Court would not substitute its own opinion to that of the authorities concerned unless glaring mistake apparent on the face of the record or violation of any mandatory provision has been pointed out.

(P&H HC) Decided on 12.02.2007

Comparative merits -- Petitioner is 60 years of age and has studied upto 4th Class and owns 10 acres of land, whereas, on the other hand, respondent is 52 years of age and has studied upto 10+2 – Held, respondent is more meritorious than the petitioner -- Hereditary claim of the petitioner cannot be the only basis for his appointment to the post of Lambardar and other qualifications have also to be seen by the Collector.

(P&H HC) Decided on 04.12.2006

Comparative merits -- Petitioner is 66 years old and is matriculate, has retired as a Draughtsman from the PWD Department and owns 46 kanal and 16 marlas of land -- Respondent is 56 years of age and is graduate and has served in the Air Force for 20 years and owns 80 kanals 15 marlas of land – Held, respondent is a better candidate than the petitioner and has rightly been appointed as Lambardar.

(P&H HC) Decided on 13.11.2006

Fresh proclamation -- Initially respondent did not apply for the post of Lambardar -- Fresh munadi was got conducted in the village inviting fresh applications -- Respondent was well within his rights to apply for the post of Lambardar -- Respondent did not apply initially cannot be said to be any impediment as he had applied when fresh proclamation was done.

(P&H HC) Decided on 13.11.2006

Qualification – Landowner -- Land owner of the estate should be appointed as Lambardar as it would be easy for him to secure the recovery of land revenue.

(P&H HC) Decided on 27.07.2006

Qualification -- Person appointed as Lambardar purchased, 5 marlas of land from his mother and he was land-owner in the said Patti on the date of his appointment as Lambardar – On merits he also appears to be more suitable for the post – Not want interference.

(P&H HC) Decided on 27.07.2006

Qualification – Rejection of candidature of all the candidates being not qualified and ordering of fresh proclamation, is permissible.

(P&H HC) Decided on 07.07.2006

Necessary party -- Petitioner himself had withdrawn his candidature for being appointed as Lambardar before the Collector -- He was not a necessary party for being impleaded in appeal filed by the other contestant.

(P&H HC) Decided on 15.05.2006

Qualification – While comparing the merits and demerits of the candidates, physically better endowed candidate was considered to be better than other – Such a reasoning is perverse.

(P&H HC) Decided on 11.05.2006

Choice of the Collector -- Collector’s satisfaction found corroboration from the recommendations of the Assistant Collector Grade-II and Assistant Collector Grade-I, also -- Choice of the District Collector, in the matter, is of primary importance, and it cannot be interfered with unless there is some patent shortcoming in it or it suffers from some other infirmity or perversity.

(P&H HC) Decided on 23.02.2006

Qualifications -- Date on which the person is appointed as Lambardar is relevant.

(P&H HC) Decided on 23.02.2006

Choice of the Collector -- Commissioner cannot substitute his choice in place of that of the Collector, without giving solid reasons for doing so -- Choice of the District Collector in the matter is of primary importance and it cannot be interfered with unless there is some patent shortcoming in it or it suffers from some other infirmity or perversity.

(P&H HC) Decided on 21.02.2006

Locus standi -- Out of four candidates one was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector – The person, who challenged the order in appeal before the Commissioner was given appointment as Lambardar and appointment made by the Collector was set aside – Other two persons have no locus standi to file revision before the Financial Commissioner.

(P&H HC) Decided on 20.12.2003