RULDU SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenges the judgment dated 9.1.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the claim of the appellant-petitioner that he was entitled to be appointed to the office of Lambardar. It has come on record that the Collector had appointed Shri Mewa Singh-respondent No. 4 as Lambardar, vide order dated 6.5.1997 after the death of the earlier Lambardar on 31.8.1995. On appeal the matter was remanded back to the Collector for reconsideration but the Collector still held the same opinion, as is evident from his order dated 24.3.1998. It was on remand once again that the appellant-petitioner was appointed as Lambardar vide order dated 4.12.2002 (P-1) passed by the Collector.

(2.) The learned Single Judge has pointed out that the Collector while exercising his independent discretion had found Shri Mewa Singhrespondent No. 4 to be more meritorious and has appointed him as Lambardar on earlier two occasions. It was third time that the Collector could not exercise his independent discretion and was prejudicial by the observation made by the Commissioner in the appellate order which went in favour of the appellant-petitioner. In that regard learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the observation made in the order dated 4.12.2002 passed by the Collector (P-1). In the said order, the order of the Commissioner has been extensively quoted.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference because exercise of discretion by the Collector is always preferred and he has appointed Shri Mewa Singh-respondent No. 4. The exercise of discretion by the Collector does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. Merely because the appellant-petitioner has been working as a Sarbrah Lambardar would not be a sole factor to nullify the other relevant consideration. Being a Sarbrah Lambardar is one of the factor to be taken into account as per the provisions of Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. There is categorical finding that Shri Mewa Singh-respondent No. 4 was more educated and having more land. This Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the view expressed by the departmental authorities. On detailed examination, we do not find that there is any error of jurisdiction or failure of justice caused by the order passed by the departmental authorities or that the view taken by the learned Single Judge suffers from any legal infirmity so as to warrant admission of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.