Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16682 = 2022(1) L.A.R. 341
Decided on: 05.04.2022
Present:
Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
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)
***
SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) –
1. The Collector appointed respondent No.6 as the Lambardar. Appeal and revision filed by the petitioner have not succeeded and thus, the present wit petition has been filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No.6 is 65 years old, whereas, the petitioner is 43 years old and thus, the authorities below were not justified in appointing him as the Lambardar.
3. 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. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this 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.
4. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
********