RATTAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant prays that order dated 24.01.2012, dismissing his writ petition, order passed by the Collector, appointing Mahavir Singh, respondent No. 4, as the lambardar, and order passed by the Financial Commissioner, may be set aside.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant submits that as the Collector and the Financial Commissioner have appointed respondent No. 4 on the basis of his hereditary claim but as the Collector has neither considered nor discussed the appellant's merits, the order passed by the Collector is perverse and arbitrary. The Commissioner, therefore, rightly set aside the order passed by the Collector and remitted the matter to the Collector, to consider the appellant's merits. The Financial Commissioner set aside this order. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner was set aside in CWP No. 511 of 2008 by remitting the matter to the Financial Commissioner and it was directed that the matter be decided afresh. After re-consideration, the Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 25.10.2010, once again affirmed his earlier order by not only relying upon the hereditary claim of respondent No. 4 but also holding that as he has worked as sarbarah lambardar and his name has been recommended by subordinate revenue authorities, he is the best candidate. The writ petition, challenging order dated 25.10.2010, passed by the Financial Commissioner has been dismissed without considering the merits of the appellant or the fact that the Collector and the Financial Commissioner have relied upon the hereditary claim of respondent No. 4. The findings recorded by the Financial Commissioner that the words "consideration shall be had amongst other matters" appearing in Rule 19(c) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "Revenue Rules"), would include factors other than those enunciated in Rule 19(c) of the Revenue Rules is correct but does not empower the Collector or the Financial Commissioner to consider a hereditary claim as a relevant factor. An appointment based upon a hereditary claim is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The impugned orders being illegal and void, may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.

(3.) Counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that the Collector and the Financial Commissioner (twice over) have recorded concurrent findings of fact that respondent No. 4 is the better candidate. The orders have been affirmed by dismissal of the writ petition. The impugned orders do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law. Admittedly, respondent No. 4 has performed the duties of a sarbarah lambardar as his grandfather was a lambardar. The order passed by the Commissioner, without recording a finding that the order passed by the Collector is perverse, arbitrary or contrary to law, has been rightly set aside.