Krishan Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Others

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ IN T JAB AND HARYANA ARH AT CHANDIGA CWP-21264-2024 (O&M) Date of decision :17.09.2024 ) KRISHAN K KUMAR

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF

CORAM:

HARYANA AND OTHERS

...Respondents

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA ARSH BUNGER Present :

Mr. Akash Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Upasana Dhawan, A.A.G., , Haryana.

**** HARSH BU UNGER, J. [ORAL] Prayer in the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of f the Constitu ution of India, is, inter alia, for is ssuance of a writ in the nature of f certiorarifo r setting aside order dated 04.09 .2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by y the learned District Collector, Charkhi Dad dri, appointing respondent No.7 (Ajit Singh) ) as Lambardar (General Categ gory) of Village Rankoli, Tehsil l and District Charkhi Dadri.

A further prayer has been ma ade by the petitioner for setting g aside the or rder dated 28.09.2021 (Annexu ure P-4) passed by the learned d Divisional Commissioner, Rohtak as we ell as order dated 21.11.2023 1/5

(Annexure P-5) passed by learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby an appeal and revision filed by the petitioner against Collector's order, were dismissed respectively.

2.

In the present case, the previous Lambardar namely, Munshi Singh expired and proceedings for filling up the said vacancy were initiated. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer, Charkhi Dadri recommended the name of respondent No.7 for appointment as Lambardar. Learned Collector, Charkhi Dadri appointed respondent No.7 as the Lambardar. The Collector's order was further upheld in appeal as well as in revision filed by the petitioner herein. 2.1 Feeling aggrieved against the impugned orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Revenue Authorities below have erred in law and fact in passing the impugned orders and have wrongly appointed respondent No.7 as the Lambardar by ignoring the better merits of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been non-suited by the authorities below on the ground that a case FIR No.100 dated 09.02.2015 under Sections 279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him. It is submitted that the petitioner already stands acquitted in the said case and therefore, no disqualification was attracted to the candidature of the petitioner. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside and the petitioner may be appointed as Lambardar.

4.

Heard.

5.

Here, it would be apposite to state the relative merits of 2/5

the candidates (as noticed by learned Collector), which can be summed up as under :- S. No.

Particulars Petitioner (Krishan Kumar) Resp. No.7 (Ajit Singh) Age 41 years 39 years Educational qualification B.A. and JBT pass Matric Land holding/s 26 Kanals 20 Kanal - 7 Marlas Recommended by ____ Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer, CharkhiDadri 5.1 A bare perusal of the above chart would show that respondent No.7 is youngerin age than the petitioner, has sufficient land holding/s; has studied upto Matric and his name was recommended by the lower Revenue Authorities. Furthermore, respondent No.7 was appointed as Lambardar and the said appointment has been further upheld by the learned Commissioner as well as the learned Financial Commissioner. 6.

In Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram and Others, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 757, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that with regard to the appointment of a Lambardar, age of a candidate is a relevant factor. 6.1 As far as the recommendations by the lower Revenue Officer is concerned, although, the Collector is not bound by the recommendation made by the Revenue Authorities in favour of a candidate; however, due consideration is to be accorded to such recommendations as they are in a position to assess the suitability of a candidate and such recommendation would have some persuasive value. In this regard, reference can be made to the observations made in the case of Hakam Singh vs Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, 2016(4) RCR (Civil) 335 and Atma Singh vs The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, 2016(1) LAR 592.

3/5

6.2 Although, the petitioner owns slightly more land than respondent No.7; however, it is observed that as 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.7 has about 20 Kanals-7 Marlas 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. 6.

3 As regards the contention of the petitioner that he stands acquitted in case FIR No.100 and no disqualification was attracted to his candidature, it is observed that once a candidate with clean antecedents was available and the Collector, after considering the merits/de-merits of all the candidates found respondent No.7 as a suitable person for being appointed as Lambardar, no fault can be found with the said choice. 6.4 Furthermore, in the case of Kuldip Singh vs Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab, 2016(1) RCR (Civil) 273; it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that choice of the District Collector cannot be lightly set aside, even if two views are possible, unless there is any patent illegality or perversity therein.

It is also well established that the learned Collector is the main authority for appointment of the Lambardar. It is the Collector, who not only appreciates the antecedents of all the candidates in the fray but also personally interacts with them.

the Appellate as well as the Revisional Authorities below, has to be respected.

7.

In the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

8.

All pending applications (if any) shall also stand closed. September 17, 2024 (HARSH BUNGER) gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No 5/5