Gaurav Aneja v. Financial Commissioner(Appeals), Punjab And Another

(1) [237] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :24.04.2026 GAURAV ANEJA ....Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), PUNJAB & ANOTHER ....Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER

Present:

***** HARSH BUNGER J. (Oral) Petition herein is, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 25.02.2020(Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, and also the order dated 12.11.2014 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala.

2.

Briefly stated, on demise of Sh. Ram Singh, previous Lambardar of Village Akbarpur alias Murad Majra, proceedings were initiated for filling up the aforesaid vacany; wherein the present petitionerGaurav Aneja and respondent No.2-Harvinder Singh were also the candidates.

3.

The learned Collector, Patiala vide order dated 26.08.2014 (Annexure P-4), appointed the present petitioner as the Lambardar.

(2) 3.1 Feeling aggrieved against the order of the learned Collector, Respondent No.2-Harvinder Singh filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, who vide order dated 12.11.2014 (Annexure P-6); set aside the order of the Collector and appointed respondent No.2-Harvinder Singh, as the Lambardar of the Village by observing as under:- "I have heard all the counsels and have also gone through the order dated 26-8-2014 passed by District Collector, Patiala. In this case the Collector has appointed the present respondent as Lambardar of the village.

The appellants are alleging that the respondent is not resident of village Murad Majra rather is resident of Patiala city and to prove this fact they have produced copy of Adhaar card, voting list of year 2014 of city Patiala and report dated 3-7-2014 issued by FCI department mentioning that no ration card has been issued in the name of Gaurve Aneja of village Murad Majra. The documentary evidence produced by appellants clearly prove that the respondent is not residing in village Murad Majra rather is residing in Patiala city and as such the respondent cannot be available for the villagers for their daily needs whereas in Lambardari cases the accessibility of a candidate is of paramount importance. On the other hand both the appellants are residents of village Murad Majra and are available to the villagers for their daily needs.

After considering all the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant Harvinder Singh is better and more suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar as he is 40 years old, has studied up to 12th class, owns sufficient land for the security of 'Zare Bharat' and nothing is adverse against his candidature. Thus the appeal filed by Sham Singh is hereby dismissed. However the appeal filed by Harvinder Singh son of Jit Singh is hereby accepted and he is ordered to be appointed as Lambardar of village Akbarpur @ Murad Majra, Tehsil and District Patiala."

(3) learned learned by primarily taking into consideration three factors; firstly, that the present petitioner has studied up to B.A., secondly that petitioner has hereditary claim over the said post and thirdly that the candidature of the petitioner has been recommended by the lower revenue authorities for appointment to the said post.

(4) during the course of hearing of this petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that learned Collector has wrongly recorded his educational qualification as "B.A. Pass" whereas he had studied only up to 10+2. If the aforesaid statement made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is to be accepted, then it would be apparent from a bare reading of para no. 2(h) of the present writ petition that petitioner has misrepresented before this Court while preparing a comparative chart of merits and demerits of contesting candidates, wherein again the qualification of the petitioner is reflected as 'B.A Pass'. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner cannot be considered to be above board. 8.

Furthermore, the learned Collector, had preferred the petitioner, also on the ground that he is the son of the deceased Lambardar. It is well settled that in the matter of appointment of Lambardar, hereditary claim has already been declared ultra vires the Constitution of India by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of "Karnail Singh Vs. The State of Haryana etc." 1973 PLJ 676.

9.

Still further, another factor which weighed with learned Collector while appointing the petitioner as Lambardar was that the lower revenue officers had recommended his name. In my considered view, recommendation by lower revenue officer is not binding on learned Collector and he is required to apply his own judicious mind in appointing a suitable candidate as Lambardar.

(5) 10.

Apparently, learned Collector had appointed petitioner as Lambardar while considering above referred three factors, which did not merit any consideration for the reasons noted above. 11.

Although, the learned Collector had appointed the petitioner as 'Lambardar', however, on an appeal being filed by respondent No.2, learned Commissioner, had appointed respondent No.2-Harvinder Singh as a Lambardar; who at the relevant time, was aged about 40 years, studied up to 10+2 and having land to the extent of 20 Kanal 01 Marla in the Village. 11.1 While appointing respondent No.2 as a Lambardar, learned Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, had also recorded a finding that the present petitioner is not the resident of Village Murad Majra, and rather he was a resident of Patiala City. Accordingly, learned Commissioner observed that the petitioner would not be readily available to the villagers for their daily needs, whereas in Lambardari cases the availability of a candidate in the village is of paramount importance.

11.2 learned

(6) 11.3

(7) Akbarpur alias Murad Majra, have been issued only after the starting of Lambardari proceedings.

12.

In my considered view, the availability of a candidate/person in the village is of paramount importance for appointing any person as Lambardar. In case a candidate is not readily available in the village then even his better merits are of no consequence. Similar view was taken by this Court in "Gurinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others" 2015(3) RCR (Civil) 1041.

13.

24.04.2026 (HARSH BUNGER) Anjal JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No