Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20846 = 2026:PHHC:017031-DB
IN/& LPA-3537 of 2025
Decided on: 05.02.2026
Present:
Ms. Bhumika Khatri, Advocate for
Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant.
A. Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of lambardar by authorities -- Interference in -- Once the revenue authorities, on the basis of the record, preferred respondent No.4 to the post of a Lambardar of the village concerned, the same need not to be interfered merely on the basis that the appellant thinks that he is a better suited candidate than respondent No.4.
(Para 4)
B. Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – FIR against candidate – Effect of -- At the time of the consideration, there was an FIR registered against the appellant, though he was acquitted later on – Held, once at the time of consideration, respondent No.4 had clean record as compared to the appellant, appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal.
(Para 4)
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL) –
CM-8710-LPA-2025
Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 05 days in filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application supported by affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 05 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
LPA-3537-2025
1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-22691-2024, by which the claim of the appellant that he was a better suited candidate than respondent No.4 for the appointment to the post of Lambardar, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that keeping in view the data which was presented before the learned Single Judge qua the candidates, the preference should have been given to the appellant for appointment to the post of Lambardar of village Aurangpur, Tehsil Badli, District Jhajjar, whereas respondent No.4 has been appointed. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even otherwise, respondent No.4 is not even a resident of the village concerned as he was running a Kiryana shop in Delhi and therefore, the revenue authorities as well as the learned Single Judge should have accepted the plea of the appellant for the appointment to the post of Lambardar.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record of the case with her able assistance.
4. Once the revenue authorities, on the basis of the record, preferred respondent No.4 to the post of a Lambardar of the village concerned, the same need not to be interfered merely on the basis that the appellant thinks that he is a better suited candidate than respondent No.4. Further, learned counsel for the appellant has conceded that at the time of the consideration qua selection to post in question, there was an FIR registered against the appellant, though he was acquitted later on, but once at the time of consideration, respondent No.4 had clean record as compared to the appellant herein, appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal.
5. With regard to the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No.4 is running a Kiryana Shop in Delhi, no record has been produced to substantiate the same either before the revenue authorities concerned, learned Single Judge or even before this Court in the present appeal.
6. Keeping in view the above, as no perversity in the orders passed by the revenue authorities, which have been upheld by the learned Single Judge, has been pointed out to this Court, no ground for interference is made out. The present appeal is dismissed accordingly.
7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Appeal dismissed.
********