MOHINDER SINGH Vs. AMARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed against the order of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar dated 26.3.2003 vide which he set aside the orders of the District Collector, Hoshiarpur dated 4.3.2002. Vide his order dated 4.3.2002 District Collector had appointed the present appellant as Lambardar of village Ajnoha Tehsil Garshankar District Hoshiarpur. In the Appeal the Commissioner set aside the order of District Collector and appointed the present respondent Shri Amarjit Singh as Lambardar.

(2.) ON behalf of the appellant it was argued that the Collector had gone into all details of the matter and determined that Shri Mohinder Singh, the present appellant, was the right choice for being appointed Lambardar, and had done so. He had evaluated the merits of the candidates and seen that neither of the candidates was debarred by law or suffered from such handicap as to make them ineligible for becoming a Lambardar. On the basis of this the Collector had made a reasoned decision to appoint Shri Mohinder Singh as Lambardar. The Commissioner, Jalandhar on the other hand set aside these orders in appeal without pointing out any perversity or invalidity in the Collector's orders. The Commissioner's order was against the basic principle of appointment of Lambardar, whereby the selection of Lambardar is to be made by the Collector. The Collector's decision can be set aside only if there is some basic infirmity in the orders. In absence of any perversity or infirmity in the Collector's order, the higher Revenue Authorities cannot substitute their preference of candidate in the place of the choice of the Collector. In support of this, reference was made of Judgement of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in PLJ-2000-Volume-II page 469, in which the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court had held that the "Selection of Lambardar has to be made by the Collector - Once selection has been properly made by Collector - Higher authorities can interfere only if view taken by Collector found to be perverse or contrary to law - Order passed by the Collector if just and reasonable Commissioner should not interfere with it."

(3.) I have gone through the appeal papers and heard the arguments of the counsels. It was agreed by both the counsels on 21.8.2003 that the case could be heard without summoning the record of the case, and accordingly the record of the case was not summoned. I am of the view that the principle is well accepted that the order of the Collector in Lambardari cases should not ordinarily be interfered with unless there is some perversity or serious shortcoming in it. If proper procedure has been followed, and the Collector has taken into account all evidence placed before him, the choice of the Collector ought not to be set aside simply because the appellate authority is of the view that the other candidate is more meritorious. In this case proper procedure has been followed by the Collector and he has clearly evaluated merits and demerits of both the candidates. As regard the argument of the counsel for the respondent that the Collector's order is without jurisdiction, this is not correct, since the Collector left the charge of the post on 5.3.2002, and as on 4.3.2002 he was the District Collector, and therefore had jurisdiction to pass these orders. As regard the allegations of misconduct on the part of the appellant, that he is in illegal possession of Panchayat Land, this matter has been taken into account by the Commissioner who has observed in his order that "as regard popularity, influence, conduct, character of the candidates, nothing adverse has been reported against any of the candidate." His reasons for upsetting the Distt Collector's order are that the respondent is son of deceased Lambardar and had been collecting chowkidara after the death of his father, has more landed property and holds an ITI diploma, is the member of Block Samiti and is, therefore, in his opinion, relatively more meritorious. He has referred to the observation of the district collector that the present respondent cannot devote the time for Lambardari since he is member of Block Samiti, Mullanpur, whereas the same arguments would apply to appellant who is the Sarpanch of the village. I do not agree with the Commissioner on this point since the appellant is Sarpanch of same village whereas the respondent is a member of Block Samiti, Mullanpur which is at some distance from the village. It is clear from the order of the Commissioner that he has substituted his preference for appointment of Lambardar in place of the appellant not because there is any perversity or infirmity in the order of Collector but simply because he is of the opinion that the respondent is a more meritorious candidate. I think this case clearly covered by the ruling PLJ 2000 Vol-II-Page 469. I agree with the counsel of the appellant that in the present case the order of the Collector is proper, fair and just, and therefore cannot set aside merely because the appellate authority is of the view that the other candidate is a more meritorious candidate. The appeal is accordingly accepted, the order of the Commissioner is set aside and order of the Collector is upheld. As the case was reserved on 13.11.2003 the order be communicated to the counsel for both the parties. Appeal allowed.