Kulwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Other

11.

pparently, all the revenue authorities, i.e. the Collector, the Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, have taken a concurrent view in favour of respondent No.4. 12.

It is a well settled law that in the matter of appointment of Lambardar, the choice of learned Collector is not be lightly interfered with, even if two views are possible, unless there is any patent illegality or perversity therein. In this regard, reference can be made to a recent judgment dated 09.07.2025 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.2217 of 2024 titled as "Murti Devi Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.", wherein it has been observed as under:

"8. Moreover, it is a settled position that choice of the Collector in respect to appointment to the post of Lambardar should not be set aside until and unless there is patent illegality or perversity pointed out therein. Interference is also not called for only on the ground that two views may be possible. In this respect gainful reference can be made to judgments of this High Court in Neeraj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2013 (4) RCR (Civil) and Sukhminder Singh Vs. the Financial Commissioner and others 1992 PLJ 325."

13.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no compelling reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Resultantly, the instant writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 14.

All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.