Vijay Kumar v. Financial Commissioner Pb & ORS
2.
Village Panchhat, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala
!"
#$ % % &
% &
'
( &
! ) " ## %
' * + #$,##,$$ -
&.#"
! ) "
/ Panchhat 0 -
&.#"
*
)
'
)
19.05.2014 (Annexure P-4) * 1
Vijay Kumar) was appointed as Lambardar of Village Panchhat, on the ground that the petitioner was younger in age and owned more land as compared to respondent No.4.
! 2 -
&.!"
!
34- 0$ #,$! 2
*
- " &
,0,6#,$7 -
&.8" '
*
1 -
&.!"
* 1
&.#"
! ) "
/ Panchhat;
9
* : "
7 ; 8 Here, it would be apposite to state the relative merits of the petitioner and respondent No.4 (as noticed by the learned District Collector); which can be summed up as under:-
!
"
#$$% & %'
( ) * +'
( ) * ,% -. ( ) *
#$ /
# 0
$)#'0 # '
$1. $ , 8.
Concededly, the learned District Collector, Kapurthala, upon finding respondent No.4 (Joga Singh) to be more suitable for the post of Lambardar, on the grounds that he was a retired government teacher; had studied up to M.A.; and his name was also recommended by the lower Revenue Officials; appointed him as Lambardar of Village Panchhat, vide order dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure P-2).
8.1 However, the said order (Annexure P-2) was set aside by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar vide order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-4); whereby the petitioner (Vijay Kumar) was appointed as Lambardar of Village Panchhat, only on the ground that he was younger in age and owned more land than respondent No.4. 9.
N
;
< *
! "#$%%&'((
)*)(
!
%
5
!
* 5
:
'
*
+ ,
( #-! "#$%'.$((
'%./ $, -s far as holding of land is concerned, same is taken into consideration only for the purpose of security towards government revenue collected by the Lambardar. Respondent No.4 has about 2 Kanal-5 Marla of land, which is sufficient to be taken into consideration for the purpose of security of revenue, collected by the Lambardar. Moreover, in case of Gurpreet Singh versus Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, 2017(1) RCR (Civil) 233, this Court has observed that land revenue stood abolished in both the State of Punjab and Haryana, long back, thus owning land by the candidates for the post of Lambardar would not be of much significance any further.
11.
Moreover, it is well settled that in the matter of appointment of Lambardar, the choice of learned Collector is not to be lightly interfered with, even if two views are possible; as held by a Division Bench of this Court in "Kuldip Singh vs Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab", 2016(1) RCR (Civil) 273.
$# % I have also gone through order dated 03.08.2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab; the relevant extract whereof reads as under:- "
x x
6. I have heard both the parties in this regard. What is important to see the grounds on which learned Commissioner has passed orders. This is important because in this case the District Collector has passed a detailed order after considering the merits and demerits of all the candidates which were available in this case. The Ld. Commissioner has passed his order primarily on two grounds, firstly that the respondent is younger in age and secondly that respondent owns more land in the Village. Going by the orders of the District Collector, he has clearly mentioned that the petitioner Joga Singh is MA, B.Ed. retired Teacher, Red Cross Certificate awardee and his name is recommended by Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar and SDM-cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Phagwara.
The Collector has seen almost all the aspects in respect of all the candidates and after evaluating the merits and demerits has passed the detailed order. Resultantly, I do not find that the order of the learned Commissioner for setting aside the order of the District Collector, Gurdaspur is based on sound reasoning. The orders of the District Collector should not be interfered unless any major irregularities are found. Undoubtedly, it has to be accepted that when the merit of a person for being appointed as Lambardar are well assessed by the Ground level Revenue Officials as they have better understanding and information at the ground level and are aware of the reputation, working and eligibility to shoulder the responsibility in a better manner.
Unless there are legal irregularities or decisions are based on wrong facts or are violative of any law, interference from the higher authorities or courts are not desirable in such cases.
7. In view of these reasons, I set aside the order of the Ld. Commissioner dated 19.05.2014 and upheld the order of
District Collector dated 21.02.2011 vide which the petitioner has been appointed as Lambardar. The District Collector is further directed to take necessary action.
x x "
12.1 Considering the totality of circumstances, in my considered view the learned Commissioner had wrongly set aside the Collector's order. Further, the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab has rightly set aside order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar; and upheld order dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned District Collector, Kapurthala; whereby respondent No.4 (Joga Singh) was appointed as Lambardar of Village Panchhat, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala. 13.
There is no scope for any interference in the order dated 03.08.2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Financial Commissioner, resultantly the present writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 14.
All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
2 .
$ = : >
?
@>
# = ?
@>