Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16674 = 2022(1) L.A.R. 334
Decided on: 04.04.2022
Present:
Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Husband of petitioner was Lambardar – Non-consideration of -- It is settled law that the choice of the Collector must be respected unless and until the same is found to be perverse -- Just because the husband of the petitioner was a Lambardar, it cannot be presumed that she has better knowledge of lambardari duties -- In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the concerned Court is only required to go into patent procedural illegalities or perversities -- It is not essential for the Court to consider each and every argument raised because appellate jurisdiction is not being exercised – No ground to interfere with the order passed by the Financial Commissioner -- Writ petition dismissed.
(Para 3-5)
***
SUDHIR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) –
1. The private respondent was appointed as Lambardar. Appeal filed by the petitioner has failed as has his revision petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the husband of the petitioner was also a Lambardar and this fact has not been taken into consideration by the revisional authority. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with. It has also been submitted that other points were also raised but the same have not been taken into consideration.
3. It is settled law that the choice of the Collector must be respected unless and until the same is found to be perverse. Rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by not considering the fact that her husband was also a Lambardar cannot be said to be a perversity. Just because the husband of the petitioner was a Lambardar, it cannot be presumed that she has better knowledge of lambardari duties. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the concerned Court is only required to go into patent procedural illegalities or perversities. It is not essential for the Court to consider each and every argument raised because appellate jurisdiction is not being exercised.
4. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Financial Commissioner.
5. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
********