Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15359 = 2020(1) L.A.R. 204
Decided on: 06.03.2020
Present:
Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Interference in -- It is settled law that choice of the Collector must be preferred unless the same is found to be perverse -- Collector has given cogent reasons and found that the said respondent is more educated, being younger in age and more active and energetic than the petitioner -- There is no perversity in the said order – Held, Commissioner was not justified in reversing the same merely because he felt that on a comparative examination of the merits of the candidates, petitioner was more suitable – Financial Commissioner accepted the appeal and restored the order of Collector – Order of FC upheld.
(Para 2-5)
***
SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) –
1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 29.04.2019 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner whereby his revision petition has been dismissed.
2. The case pertains to appointment of a Lambardar. Vide order dated 28.08.2014, the Collector appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar. The said order was reversed by the learned Commissioner vide his order dated 16.09.2016. In an appeal filed by the petitioner, order of the Commissioner was challenged by respondent No. 4 before the Financial Commissioner who has accepted the same. The order of the Collector has been upheld.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Commissioner was a well reasoned order. Learned Commissioner examined the comparative merits of the candidates and found that the petitioner was more meritorious. The reasoning given by him is just and legal as he has found that the petitioner is elder and more mature and possesses more land in the village. Moreover, his father and grand father were Lambardars and, thus, he is better suited to be appointed to the said post. Thus, the learned Financial Commissioner was not justified in reversing the said order.
4. It is settled law that choice of the Collector must be preferred unless the same is found to be perverse. While appointing respondent No. 4 as the Lambardar, the Collector has given cogent reasons. He has found that the said respondent is more educated, being younger in age and more active and energetic than the petitioner. There is no perversity in the said order and the learned Commissioner was not justified in reversing the same merely because he felt that on a comparative examination of the merits of the candidates that the petitioner was more suitable.
5. Thus, I do not find any error in the order of the learned Financial Commissioner. The writ petition is without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
********