JUDGMENT

JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL).-- This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against an order dated 29.5.2013, dismissing CWP No. 11386 of 2013, filed by the appellant, challenging appointment of respondent No. 5 as Lambardar of Village Chak Chela, Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar.

2. On accrual of post, applications to appoint Lambardar in the above said village were invited in the year 2005/2006. After taking note of comparative merits and de-merits of the contesting candidates, the appellant was appointed as Lambardar in the village.

3. Matter came to the Financial Commissioner, who vide his order dated 22.10.2008 set aside appointment of the appellant as Lambardar, and the Collector was ordered to look into the matter afresh.

4. Before the Financial Commissioner, it was case of respondent No.5 that the appellant had been in un-authorised occupation of land meant for a passage, which he had removed only when demarcation was going to be affected. Order dated 22.10.2008 was never challenged.

5. Matter went to the Collector. The demarcation was affected again, wherein it was noticed that the appellant was in possession of land meant for a passage and when he came to know that demarcation is going to be affected, he removed that encroachment and shifted the boundary wall to his own land.

6. To support above said finding, photographs of the demolished wall were placed on record. Report of demarcation was submitted on 11.9.2006. Again a demarcation was done on 17.6.2009 by making reference to measurement at the spot and photographs so clicked. It was said that the appellant had been in un-authorised occupation of land meant for a passage.

7. The Collector vide order dated 7.1.2010 (P-8) looked into the comparative qualifications of the candidates and found respondent No.5, a suitable candidate for the post in question. It was noticed that against the appellant, allegation of encroachment upon common purposes' land was proved on record. It was further noticed that respondent No.5 owns more land, as compared to the appellant, further he had participated in welfare works and had made donation to the Government school, whereas, the appellant had made donation to a private institution. It was further said that as the appellant's land is situated in two villages, to the residents of village Chak Chela, he may not be easily available.

8. The appellant went in appeal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner on 3.9.2010. He also lost in revision, which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 17.4.2012. The appellant came to this Court by filing CWP No. 11386 of 2013, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 29.5.2013.

9. Learned Single Judge has thoroughly looked into the orders passed by the authorities below and thereafter has observed as under :-

“A combined reading of the above said impugned orders passed by all the three revenue authorities would show that while recording their concurrent findings of fact, the District Collector, Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner did not commit any error of fact or law. It has been categorically held that the petitioner has made encroachment on the public passage. On the other hand, respondent No.5 was found enjoying clean image. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the impugned orders are justified on facts, as well as in law and the same deserve to be upheld.

Once a person of clean image is available, who is fully eligible for appointment to the post of Lambardar, why a tainted candidate should be given any preference. It is always desirable and also in the greater public interest that a person of good reputation and clean image is appointed as Lambardar. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that once the petitioner was found to be an encroacher on the public passage, the District Collector rightly appointed respondent No.5 as Lambardar. Order of the District Collector was rightly upheld by the Commissioner, as well as by the Financial Commissioner. Thus, the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities deserve to be upheld.

It is the settled proposition of law that the District Collector being the appointing authority, his order of appointment of Lambardar deserves due respect at the hands of higher revenue authorities, in the hierarchy, provided under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. It is the settled proposition of laws that the order passed by the District Collector are ordinarily not to be interfered with by the higher revenue authorities. Although it is not an absolute rule and the Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner will be well within their jurisdiction, while setting aside the orders passed by the District Collector if the same is found to be based on misrepresentation of facts or suffering from any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any patent illegality or perversity in either of the impugned orders, which is sine quo non for interference at the hands of this court in the cases of appointment of Lambardar. Further no prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the petitioner by passing the impugned orders. Concurrent findings of fact have been recorded against  the petitioner by all the three revenue authorities, leaving hardly any scope for interference by this Court. Thus, the impugned orders deserve to be upheld.”

10. It was rightly noticed that person with clean image has to be preferred for the post of Lambardar. It was further noticed that the Collector has found respondent No.5 more meritorious and Collector's choice, invariably, is to be respected unless bad in law.

11. At the time of arguments, counsel for the appellant has failed to show any perversity in the order passed by the Collector.

12. It has come on record that at one point of time, the appellant had occupied common purposes' land and when he came to know about that the demarcation is going to be effected, he shifted his boundary wall to his own land from the common land. However, the photographs, which were taken at the spot, proved his earlier un-authorised occupation upon the common purposes land.

13. No case is made out to interfere in the orders under challenge.

14. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

********