REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5552 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20567/2008)
Ishwar Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Satbir Singh & Ors. ...Respondents
JUDGEMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
Leave granted.
2. The controversy in this appeal by special leave
relates to the appointment of Lambardar for village Pehladgarh,
Tehsil and District Bhiwani. The said post fell vacant due to the
death of the then Lambardar on August 1, 2000. Four persons
applied for that post but later on two candidates withdrew their
candidature and the present Appellant and Respondent No. 1
remained for selection. The Collector, Bhiwani by his order
dated December 15, 2005 considered the candidature of these
two candidates and issued an order of appointment in favour of
Respondent No. 1 as Lambardar of village Pehladgarh. In the
opinion of the Collector, Bhiwani, Satbir Singh, Respondent No.
1, was more suitable. This is how the Collector, District Bhiwani
considered comparative merits of these two candidates :
“……….I have come to conclusion that Satbir Singh
candidate is a suitable candidate. He is Matric pass and has
passed the B.A. from Military. He has 7 acres of land which
is sufficient for filing taxes. Satbir Singh candidate is younger
in age than the other candidate and being healthy and
active, he is capable to perform the job of Lambardari
effectively. Shri Ishwar Singh candidate has cut the green,
neem tree from the panchayat land and the allegation was
leveled upon his brother Sudesh for cutting neem tree as his
family members namely Sube Singh as the Sarpanch. It is
thus clear that Ishwar Singh candidate is not person of a
clean antecedents. Therefore on the basis of the above
mentioned facts Shri Satbir Singh son of Shri Ram Jiwan is
appointed as Lambardar of village at the place of Siri Chand
deceased Lambardar of village Pehladgarh”
3. The present appellant assailed the aforesaid order of the
Collector, District Bhiwani by filing an appeal before the
Commissioner, Hissar Division. The Commissioner, Hissar
Division did not agree with the view of the Collector, Bhiwani in
respect of suitability of the present Respondent No. 1. The
Commissioner, Bhiwani held :
2
“……….From the perusal of the record, it is found that
the appellant has more land than the respondent and he is
B.A. pass and retire from the Military service as Honorary
Captain, whereas the respondent is Matriculate and retire as
Havaldar. The appellant remained Sarbrah Lamberdar of his
father for many years and he has the experience of
Lambardar. No document was produced on the file which
can prove the illegal possession of the appellant. The
allegation against the appellant for cutting the green neem
tree from the panchayat land is also not proved whereas the
Collector did not accept. The appellant having the good
antecedents on this basis, which is not legally justified.
Besides this, Tehsildar Bhiwani and S.D.O.(civil), Bhiwani
have also recommended the name of the appellant for his
appointment. Though the Collector is the appointing
authority of the post and his order should not be interfered in
general conditions but I do not find that the order of
Collector, Bhiwani is not justified on the grounds mentioned
above and I hereby set aside on this ground and appoint
appellant-Shri Ishwar Singh as Lambardar of village
Pehladgarh.”
4. The Respondent No. 1 challenged the order of the
Commissioner, Hissar Division by filing a Revision Petition
before the Financial Commissioner, Government of Haryana.
The Financial Commissioner in his order dated January 18,
2008, after hearing the parties, found no reason to interfere with
the order of the Commissioner, Hissar Division. In the opinion of
the Financial Commissioner, Government of Haryana, the order
of the Collector was perverse and illegal and, therefore, rightly
set aside by Commissioner, Hissar Division. The Financial
Commissioner considered the matter thus :
3
“It is well settled law that the order of Collector should
not be interfered with unless there is perversity or illegality
therein. I am also of the opinion that mere allegation of
cutting of tree-which was not substantiate subsequently
should not have been the basis of Collector’s conclusion that
the respondent did not possess a good image. This clearly
shows that the Collector has not applied his mind judiciously
and his order is perverse and illegal and, therefore, rightly
set aside by the Commissioner.
Further, what clinches the issue in favour of
respondent is his active participation in social service by
donating blood twice and organizing a Blood Donation Camp
and also motivating cases for Family Planning. All other
qualifications being almost similar, age factor only cannot
weigh in favour of petitioner because he has not rendered
the kind of social service and assistance in Government
sponsored programmers as has been done by the
respondent. In view of this, I am of the opinion that the order
of the Collector was rightly set aside by the Commissioner
and the respondent was a better candidate to discharge the
functions of a Lambardar.”
5. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner
was challenged by the Respondent No. 1 in the writ petition
before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court
upturned the orders of the Financial Commissioner as well as
Commissioner, Hissar Division and restored the order of the
Collector, District Bhiwani. The High Court held thus :
4
“The Commissioner and Financial Commissioner
have reversed the order of the Collector only on the ground
that respondent No. 4 has more land and passed BA and
was retired from Military Service as Honorary Capt., whereas
petitioner is Matriculate and retired as Havaldar. The
Collector has given a specific finding that petitioner is
Matriculate and B.A. from Military and is younger in age and
possesses more land in comparison to respondent No. 4.
Moreover, contribution of the petitioner in social activities is
much more than respondent No. 4 as petitioner has
deposited Rs. 1.30 lacs with Small Saving Scheme and is a
Member of Red Cross Society and has also constructed a
room in village school. In addition also, the petitioner seems
to be more active and energetic and as such he has rightly
been appointed by the Collector being more meritorious.
It is a settled law that choice of the Collector should
not be interfered with unless the same is perverse or
violative of any rule or procedure. Moreover, there is nothing
in the orders passed by the Commissioner as well as
Financial Commissioner that choice of the Collector is
perverse, violative or against any rules or procedure.”
6. The Lambardar is a village headman. His main job
is the collection of revenue. He is paid fixed remuneration as
well as some commission. The criterion for appointment to the
post of Lambardar, inter-alia, includes educational qualification,
age, experience in working of Lambardari, land and property,
character, ability and freedom from indebtedness.
7. In Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram and Others1 this
Court was concerned with the controversy relating to
appointment of Lambardar under Punjab Land Revenue Act,
1887 and rules framed thereunder. The court held that with
1
(2009) 3 SCC 439
5
regard to the appointment of a Lambardar in the State of
Punjab, age of a candidate is a relevant factor. This court
noticed few old cases of Lahore High Court which throw some
light on the subject thus :
“15. In Lt. Malik Abbas Khan v. Ghulam Haidar (1940 Lah
LT 25) it was stated:
“… It is certainly not wise, save in very exceptional
circumstances, to appoint for the first time, an Inamkhor or
Zaildar whose age is 60 or more.”
16. In Kalyan Singh v. Haidar (1928 Lah LT 33) the Financial
Commissioner held that ordinarily the Collector’s choice
appointing a Zaildar or Sufedpost should not be interfered
with even though the appellate authority believes that his
choice was not the best choice.
17. Similar view was expressed in Lila Ram v. Asa Ram
(1955 Lah LT 29) in the following terms:
“2. … While it is now an established principle that there
should be no interference with the choice made by the
Collector, it does not follow that where the Collector’s order
is based on a misrepresentation of facts, there should still be
no interference.”
8. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and their
respective contentions. The High Court in the impugned order
observed that there was nothing in the orders passed by the
Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner that the
choice of the Collector is perverse, violative or against in rules
or procedure. This is apparently founded on erroneous premise.
6
The Financial Commissioner has categorically held that the
Collector did not apply his mind judiciously and his order is
perverse and illegal. The High Court seems to have overlooked
the aforesaid observation. Whether Financial Commissioner
was justified in his observation or not is altogether a different
matter. We even do not suggest for a moment that within
permissible limits of judicial review, the orders of the Financial
Commissioner and Commissioner could not have been
interfered with, but then the High Court must have given cogent
and convincing reasons for such interference. We find that the
impugned order lacks in that. As the matter needs to be re-
examined by the High Court afresh, we refrain from dealing with
the matter further and leave the parties to agitate their
contentions before the High Court.
9. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the judgment
dated April 11, 2008 passed by the High Court is set aside. Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 1672 of 2008 is restored to the file of the
High Court for fresh consideration and decision. Needless to
say that the contentions of the parties are kept open to be
agitated before the High Court which obviously would be
7
decided on their own merits. We request the High Court to
decide the aforesaid writ petition as expeditiously as may be
possible. Parties will bear their own costs.
……………………J
(Tarun Chatterjee)
……………………J
(R. M. Lodha)
New Delhi
August 17, 2009.
8