JUDGMENT

JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL) --

Civil Misc. No. 4907-LPA of 2013

1. Civil Misc. Application is allowed.

2. Documents annexed with the application are taken on record.

Letters Patent Appeal No. 2047 of 2012

3. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 24.1.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, in Civil Writ Petition No. 11633 of 2010, filed by respondent No.1. Dispute therein pertains to post of Lambardar in village Noorpura, Tehsil and District Sangrur. On accrual of the post, applications were invited. Report was sought from the Field Revenue Staff and on receipt of report, appellant, respondent No.1- Jagjit Singh, Sahib Singh and Lakhwinder Singh emerged as the contesting candidates. Taking note of comparative qualifications of all the four candidates, the Collector, vide order dated 6.11.2007, appointed respondent No.1 as Lambardar in the village. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:-

“After hearing candidates, their advocates and perusal of case record it is found that Lakhwinder Singh candidate is not permanent resident of village, he is working as Pathi in District Patiala. Although Kuldip Singh candidate is more educated than others and owns more property but he indulges in party activities, case under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. is also pending against him, therefore he is not capable candidate as compared to other candidates. Jagjit Singh and Sahib Singh are permanent residents of village and there is nothing against them on record. Jagjit Singh candidate is son of deceased Numberdar. Lower Revenue Authorities had recommended his name. Therefore, Jagjit Singh Numberdar being more meritorious than others is appointed as Numberdar of village Nurpura on the post which had become vacant due to the death of his father Jangir Singh Numberdar. For security of land revenue his land will remain mortgaged with the government. Certificate be issued.”

Appellant's claim was rejected on a ground that he was involved in a dispute with some residents of the village. Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner. On 22.4.2008, the Commissioner, by taking note of arguments raised by the appellant and respondent No.1, came to a conclusion that respondent No.1 is more meritorious. All the lower revenue authorities have recommended his candidate and to the recommendation, so made, preference has rightly been given by the Deputy Commissioner. It was noted that he being son of a deceased Lambardar needs to be given some benefit. It was also observed that he has sufficient land in the village. It was further noted that the appellant was involved in litigation with some villagers. In revision, Financial commissioner reversed the order passed by the Collector and the Commissioner by noting that the benefit has wrongly been given to respondent No.1 of the hereditary claim. It was further said that in the proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. the appellant was exonerated. The above order was passed by ignoring settled principles of law that Collector's choice is to be respected unless there is material flaw on facts and in law. Respondent No.1 came to this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 11633 of 2010, which was allowed vide order dated 24.1.2012. It was rightly said that the Financial Commissioner has not recorded a finding that order passed by the Collector is perverse in law or on facts. After noting comparative merits of the contesting candidates, it was observed as under:-

“I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner has been recommended by all the subordinate revenue authorities. The District Collector after appreciating the comparative merits of the candidates appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the Village. The said appointment has been affirmed in appeal by the Divisional Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner has set aside the order of the District Collector and Divisional Commissioner without recording a finding that the order passed by the District Collector is perverse. The choice of the Collector cannot be lightly set aside. The only ground taken for setting aside the appointment of the petitioner is qualification and excess land.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is acceptable on the ground that the financial commissioner has not recorded a finding that the order of the District Collector is perverse neither he has recorded any finding with regard to perversity in the order of the Divisional Commissioner. It is a settled principle of law that the choice of the Collector cannot be lightly set aside unless it is perverse. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out any perversity or illegality in the orders passed by the District Collector and Divisional Commissioner. There is no qualification prescribed under the rules with regard to appointment of Lambardar. Even an illiterate person can be appointed. The petitioner has preferential claim in view of the fact that his father was a previous Lambardar. Otherwise also all the subordinate revenue authorities have recommended his name.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the considered view that the choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly. This view has been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram and others, 2009(1) L.A.R. 571 (SC) = 2009(3) SCC-439, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the controversy relating to appointment of Lambardar under Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and Rules framed thereunder. The Apex Court noticed few old cases of Lahore High Court which throw some light on the subject matter are as under:-

“In Lt. Malik Abbas Khan v. Ghulam Haidar (1940 Lahore Law Times 25), it was stated:

“…It is certainly not wise, save in very exceptional circumstances, to appoint for the first time, an Inamkhor or Zaildar whose age is 60.”

In Kalyan Singh v. Haidar (1928 Lahore Law Times, 33), the Financial Commissioner held that ordinarily the Collector’s choice appointing a Zaildar or Sufedpost should not be interfered with even though the appellate authority believes that his choice was not the best choice.

Similar view was expressed in Lila Ram v. Asa Ram (1995 Lahore Law Times, 29), in the following terms:

“…While it is now an established principle that there should be no interference with the choice made by the Collector, it does not follow that where the Collector’s order is based on a misrepresentation of facts, there should still be no interference.”

The above view has also been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in of Phool Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009(2) L.A.R. 421 (P&H) = 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 819.

It has been observed that there should be no interference with the choice made by the Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar even if two views are possible. It is only the prerogative of the Collector to compare the merits of the candidates for the post of Lambardar. The Financial Commissioner has only limited right to interfere that too when the choice of the Collector is found to be perverse, suffers from material irregularity and only then the order of the Collector can be set aside.”

It was further said that choice of the Collector needs to be respected.

4. We have heard counsel for the parties and are satisfied with the findings given by the Collector, the Commissioner and the learned Single Judge upholding appointment of respondent No.1 as Lambardar in the village. Even in cases, where candidates are evenly balanced, Collector's choice has to be respected. It is also not in dispute that name of respondent No.1 was recommended by the lower revenue staff. It is also established on record that the appellant was in litigation with some residents of the village. To say so, copies of the complaints filed against him are placed on record.

5. No case is made out to cause interference in the appeal by this Court.

6. This appeal is also barred by limitation of 261 days in filing. No ground is made out to condone the delay in filing the appeal as well.

7. Hence, both Letters Patent Appeal No. 2047 of 2012 and Civil Misc. No. 5388-LPA of 2012 are dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

********