Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20471 = 2025:PHHC:136496-DB
in/& LPA-2091 of 2024 (O&M)
Decided on: 29.09.2025
Present:
Mr. Rahul Arora, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.
Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age – Land holding -- Appointed candidate/ Respondent No.4 has the land in the village of which he has been appointed as Lambardar and his name was recommended by the Tehsildar as well as by the Sub Division Magistrate, which was accepted by the all the authorities, whereas no land is owned by the appellant in the village -- Appellant is 24 years of age and respondent No.4 is 30 years of age -- Six years difference between the age is not such that it will tilt the pendulum in favour of the appellant -- No ground made out for interference – LPA dismissed.
(Para 4-6)
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL) --
CM-7177-LPA-2025
The present application has been filed for restoration of the main writ petition by recalling the order dated 11.09.2025, by which the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the application, the order dated 11.09.2025 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number and status. On the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal is taken on board for consideration.
CM stands disposed of.
LPA-2091-2024 (O&M)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-16034-2024, by which the challenge raised at the hands of the appellant to the appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar, has been declined.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the chart, which has been reproduced by the learned Single Judge, shows that respondent No.4 has passed 10+2 standard, whereas the said certificate needs to be verified so as to record the said finding, which has not been done.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record of the case with his able assistance.
4. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that qua the certificate of passing 10+2 standard, the appellant is raising certain grievances, but the same was not the only consideration to appoint respondent No.4 as Lambardar. Respondent No.4 has the land in the village of which he has been appointed as Lambardar and his name was recommended by the Tehsildar as well as by the Sub Division Magistrate, which was accepted by the all the authorities, whereas no land is owned by the appellant in the village. The appellant is only claiming himself to be a resident of the said village.
5. Further, the age is also being brought into operation on the ground that the appellant is 24 years of age and respondent No.4 is 30 years of age. Six years difference between the age is not such that it will tilt the pendulum in favour of the appellant.
6. Once, there is no disability attached with respondent No.4 so as to his appointment as Lambardar, the order passed by the learned Single Judge that he will go by the orders which have been passed by the revenue authorities, according to which respondent No.4 is a better suited candidate, no ground is made out for interference as learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any perversity in the impugned order 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Appeal dismissed.
********