BADAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.08.2016 affirming the order of the Asstt. Collector and Collector appointing the respondent No.4 as Lambardar even though the Financial Commissioner had remanded the matter back for a fresh decision.

(2.) The only question that has been raised before us is that respondent No.4 could not be appointed as Lambardar as on the date of consideration he did not have land in the same revenue estate of which he was an aspirant as a Lambardar. It is, however, candidly conceded that even this defect was cured as the said respondent exchanged his land in the revenue estate of the village where he was aspiring to become a Lambardar.

(3.) We do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge for the reason that the only defect pointed out by the appellant stood cured in any eventuality. We also do not find any reason to differ with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in this regard. The appellant has been unable to show any distinct advantage over the selected candidate. Consequently, we would lean towards to the choice of the Collector in view of the settled principle of law that it needs to be respected unless there is some perversity in the same. Therefore, we decline interference.