(2012) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 12388 = 2012(3) L.A.R. 125
Decided on: 15.11.2012
Present: Mr. Karamvir Singh Banyana, Advocate for the appellant
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector -- Decision of the Collector in respect of suitability and fitness of a candidate as Lambardar is administrative in nature -- It is an established principle that judicial review of such order is confined to an appraisal of the impugned order so as to discern whether it is perverse, arbitrary or violates the provisions of any statutory enactment -- Till such time the choice of the Collector does not suffer from any of the above disabilities, it shall be deemed to be final -- Even otherwise decision of the Collector should not be lightly interfered with.
The decision of the Collector in respect of suitability and fitness of a candidate as Lambardar is administrative in nature. It is an established principle that judicial review of such order is confined to an appraisal of the impugned order so as to discern whether it is perverse, arbitrary or violates the provisions of any statutory enactment. Thus, till such time the choice of the Collector does not suffer from any of the above disabilities, it shall be deemed to be final.
Counsel for the appellant has failed to substantiate his plea that the order passed by the Collector, affirmed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) suffers from any error of jurisdiction or of law warranting interference. Even otherwise as per the settled position of law, the decision of the collector should not be lightly interfered with. In this context, reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram & others, 2009(3) SCC 439 and Lila Ram vs. Asa Ram 1995 Lahore Law Times 29.
(Para 5,6)
Cases referred:
1. Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram & others, 2009(1) L.A.R. 571 (SC) = 2009(3) SCC 439.
2. Lila Ram v. Asa Ram, 1995 Lahore Law Times 29.
JUDGMENT
REKHA MITTAL, J. –
1. The appellant prays for setting aside order dated 8.5.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby his petition has been dismissed.
2. Counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge wrongly dismissed the writ petition as the appellant is the most suitable and best candidate for being appointed as Scheduled Caste Lambardar as compared to respondent No. 4 (selected candidate) because the appellant has better educational qualification, he is brother of deceased Lambardar and has experience to perform the duties of Lambardar as he was assisting his brother.
3. We have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order and find no reason to entertain much less accept the appeal.
4. On accrual of vacancy of Scheduled Caste Lambardar of village Dheerpur, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, process was initiated by the concerned revenue authorities to fill the vacancy. The appellant and respondent No. 4 were the contesting candidates for the said post. The Collector, Kurukshetra decided in favour of respondent No. 4 vide order dated 31.12.2009. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, against order dated 31.12.2009, which was accepted and the appellant was appointed as Lambardar. Respondent No. 4 filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana and the same was allowed vide order dated 16.11.2011, impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. A relevant extract from the impugned order reads as follows:-
“The appellant was 69 years of age at the time of application while the private respondent was less than 50 years of age. Having regard to the age, qualification, character and service to society, the Financial Commissioner was of the opinion that the choice of the private respondent could be better. While so holding, he has also observed that the decision of the Collector ought not to be lightly interfered with and if the Collector had preferred the choice of the private respondent, there was no reason why the appellant has to be preferred. I do not find any error in the order subjected to challenge in the writ petition.”
5. The decision of the Collector in respect of suitability and fitness of a candidate as Lambardar is administrative in nature. It is an established principle that judicial review of such order is confined to an appraisal of the impugned order so as to discern whether it is perverse, arbitrary or violates the provisions of any statutory enactment. Thus, till such time the choice of the Collector does not suffer from any of the above disabilities, it shall be deemed to be final.
6. Counsel for the appellant has failed to substantiate his plea that the order passed by the Collector, affirmed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) suffers from any error of jurisdiction or of law warranting interference. Even otherwise as per the settled position of law, the decision of the collector should not be lightly interfered with. In this context, reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram & others, 2009(1) L.A.R. 571 (SC) = 2009(3) SCC 439 and Lila Ram vs. Asa Ram 1995 Lahore Law Times 29.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.
********