MOTI LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The post of Lambardar of village Sandwa, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani, fell vacant on the death of Sukh Ram. Both A.C. 2nd Grade and the A.C. 1st Grade, Tosham, recommended the name of the petitioner to the Collector for appointment on the said post. However, vide his order dated 13.07.2010, respondent No. 4 was appointed by the Collector and the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner were dismissed on 14.01.2011 and 29.07.2011 respectively. The petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 20838 of 2011 which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Financial Commissioner to pass fresh order taking into account the order dated 11.03.2004 passed by the Collector by which the petitioner was appointed as Sarbrah Lambardar. After remand, the Financial Commissioner again decided to appoint respondent No. 4 as Lambardar of the village vide his order dated 19.08.2013, observing as under:-

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that all the authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") have been consistent in appointing respondent No. 4 as Lambardar and for that matter experience of the petitioner as Sarbrah Lambardar would not have much effect because respondent No. 4 has been found to be more suitable for the post of Lambardar by all the authorities under the Act. In this regard, he has also referred to all the documents in order to show that he has been a member of the village Literacy Committee, helped in Government Family Planning cases and is also a member of the Red Cross Society, whereas the petitioner had no proof of tree plantation and motivating others for blood donation because he himself had never donated the blood and despite the fact that he had submitted an undertaking in the form of affidavit dated 29.04.2010 to mobilize small savings of Rs. 5 lacs, did not honour that undertaking so far. It is further submitted that notification dated 17.06.2010 with regard to experience as Sarbrah Lambardar, relied upon by the petitioner, talks of the draft rules as the said notification has been issued in terms of Section 28(1) of the Act and published in terms of Section 156 of the Act for inviting objections in respect of the draft rules upto the period of 15 days but the petitioner has failed to produce on record notification with regard to amendment in the rules subsequently made after 17.06.2010 notification. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Lambardar of the village cannot be disturbed as it is a consistent choice of all the authorities under the Act and there is no perversity in the impugned order(s). Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed being denuded of any merit.