In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
C.W.P. No.12381 of 2009
.....
Date of decision:17.8.2009
Kabul Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
....
Present: Mr. Sharad Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
S.S. Saron, J.
After the death of Shri Issar Singh, the previous Lambardar of
Village Saharanwas, Tehsil and District Rewari a proclamation was made in
the Village on 23.2.2004 inviting applications for appointment of
Lambardar from interested persons. Three persons, namely, Kabul Singh
(petitioner), Khub Lal (respondent No.4) and Sunil Kumar (respondent
No.5) applied for the post. On the basis of the material placed on record the
Tehsildar recommended the name of Kabul Singh (petitioner) for
appointment as Lambardar. The Assistant Collector-cum-SDM after going
through the material on record also recommended the name of the petitioner
for appointment as Lambardar. The petitioner appeared before the
Collector, District Rewari (respondent No.3) on 6.7.2004. Respondents
No.4 and 5, it is stated, did not appear before the Collector (respondent
No.3). Accordingly, the Collector (respondent No.3) vide order dated
6.7.2004 (Annexure-P.1) appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the
village finding him to be most suitable. Aggrieved against the order dated
C.W.P. No.12381 of 2009
[2]
6.7.2004 (Annexure-P.1), Khub Lal (respondent No.4) filed an appeal
before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No.2).
The Commissioner vide his order dated 23.11.2006 (Annexure-P.2) set
aside the order dated 6.7.2004 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the District
Collector, Rewari. The Commissioner in his order dated 23.11.2006
(Annexure-P.2) observed that Khub Lal (respondent No.4) had experience
of the work of Lambardar as he was son of deceased Lambardar. Besides,
he is an ex-serviceman and more literate than Kabul Singh (petitioner).
Khub Lal (respondent No.4), it was observed, had 7.5 acres of land and his
economic condition in relation to Kabul Singh (petitioner) was very good.
Besides, it was observed that an ex-serviceman is to be given preference for
the post of Lambardar. Accordingly, Khub Lal (respondent No.4) was
appointed as Lambardar. The petitioner aggrieved against the order dated
23.11.2006 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division
filed a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act,
1887 before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The learned Financial
Commissioner after going through the evidence and material on record vide
order dated 27.1.2009 (Annexure-P.3) observed that Kabul Singh
(petitioner) though was younger in age but Khub Lal (respondent No.4) was
physically fit and could discharge functions of the Lambardar effectively.
Besides, it was observed that Khub Lal (respondent No.4) being son of the
Lambardar would be well versed with the functioning of the post of
Lambardar. It was also observed that Khub Lal (respondent No.4) was an
ex-serviceman who is to be given preference in the matter of appointment.
The petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 27.1.2009 (Annexure-P.3)
C.W.P. No.12381 of 2009
[3]
passed by the learned Financial Commissioner has filed the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
petitioner is more suitable than respondent No.4 for appointment as
Lambardar. It is submitted that respondent No.4 is suffering from
tuberculosis. A reference has been made to the certificate dated 17.8.2006
(Annexure-P.4). Besides, it is submitted that respondent No.4 is 72 years of
age whereas the petitioner is 44 years of age. It is also submitted that
respondent No.4 is in illegal possession of 2 Kanals 2 Marlas of land of the
panchayat. A reference has been made to the copy of demarcation report
dated 4.12.2005 (Annexure-P.5). It is also submitted that Khub Lal
(respondent No.4) himself had not appeared before the Collector and,
therefore, was not considered and has rendered himself ineligible for
consideration.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter and with
the assistance of the learned counsel gone through the record. It may be
noticed that in the matter of appointment of Lambardar, the choice of the
District Collector is normally to be preferred and not lightly set aside unless
there is some gross irregularity, perversity or patent error in the order
appointing the Lambardar. Nevertheless the hearing of an appeal is a
continuation of the original petition. At the time of hearing before the
District Collector, Khub Lal (respondent No.4) was proceeded ex parte as
he did not put in appearance. He, however, preferred an appeal against the
order of the District Collector before the Commissioner. The Commissioner
after considering the inter se merit of the candidates found Khub Lal
(respondent No.4) to be more suitable. As already noticed it was observed
that Khub Lal (respondent No.4) was son of the deceased Lambardar and he
C.W.P. No.12381 of 2009
[4]
was an ex-serviceman. Besides, he had more land than the petitioner. His
economic condition was also observed to be better than the petitioner. The
order of the Commissioner has been upheld by the learned Financial
Commissioner.
For the appointment of the Village Headman Rule 15 of the
Punjab Land Revenue Rules (as applicable in Haryana) (`Rules’ – for short)
provides for matters to be considered in first appointment. Rule 15 reads as
under:-
“15. Matters to be considered in first appointments.– In all
first appointments of headman, regard shall be had among other
matters to–
(a) his hereditary claims;
(b) extent of property in the estate possessed by the
candidate.
(c) services rendered to the State by himself or by his family;
(d) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom
from indebtedness;
(e) the strength and importance of the community from
which selection of a headman is to be made;
(f) services rendered by himself or by his family in the
national movements to secure freedom of India.”
A perusal of the above provides for guidance for appointment.
Hereditary claim is one of the factors which are to be taken into account for
consideration for appointment as Lambardar. Besides, even the holdings of
a person and services rendered to the State by the candidate himself or by
C.W.P. No.12381 of 2009
[5]
his family are necessary to be taken into consideration for appointment as
Lambardar. The petitioner has been son of the deceased Lambardar.
The grounds taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner are
that respondent No.4 is not suitable and that he is suffering from
tuberculosis. A reference has been made to the certificate dated 17.8.2006
(Annexure-P.4). A perusal of the said certificate shows that upto the month
of August 2006 the petitioner had been taking treatment for TB. However,
there is nothing on record to show that after the issuance of the certificate in
2006, respondent No.4 continues to suffer from the disease further. As
regards the demarcation report dated 4.12.2005 (Annexure-P.5) it is not
shown that the same was placed before the revenue authorities at the time of
consideration of appointment as Lambardar. This Court in exercise of its
supervisory writ jurisdiction is not to sit in appeal over the findings and
conclusions reached at by the revenue authorities on the relative assessment
of the inter se merit of the candidates. Neither is this Court to substitute its
decision for that recorded by the revenue authorities after due consideration
of the merits and demerits of the candidates. The fact that petitioner was
proceeded against ex-parte before the Collector is of no consequence as he
is not estopped from availing his statutory right of appeal.
In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
August 17, 2009. (S.S. Saron)
Judge
*hsp*
NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No