Appointment of Lambardar

Character of the candidate -- Petitioner, being son of former-deceased Lambardar did not, for more than 30 years, inform the authorities about the death of his father, rather, he undertook to collect the land revenue, etc., without any authority from the competent authority – Petitioner is 70 years old – A person like the petitioner, if allowed to be appointed as Lambardar, would not make a good choice. Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 422 (P&H).

Choice of Collector – Appellate Court’s Jurisdiction -- After considering the merits of the candidates, the Collector appointed the Lambardar -- Commissioner accepted the appeal in abject disregard to the limits of his jurisdiction as an appellate court and proceeded to reverse the order passed by the Collector by imposing his perception of the better candidate – Commissioner lost sight of a fundamental principle that governs selection of a Lambardar namely; that the choice of the Collector is final, except where it is palpably perverse, arbitrary, preposterous or contrary to the rules -- Financial Commissioner rightly restored the order passed by the Collector Kulwinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 201 (P&H).

Choice of Collector -- It is an accepted practice in lambardari cases that other things being equal, the choice of the District Collector has to be respected unless and until there was something patently wrong with the order. Rajinder Singh v. Pipal Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 88 (FC Pb.).

Comparative merits -- Appellate Authority’s Jurisdiction -- Collector appointed candidate who is substantially younger in age, being 40 years of age, whereas the petitioner is 52 years of age – Land holding is also 39 kanals 9 marlas in the village as against the 25 kanals of the petitioner – Appointed candidate also has experience as Sarbrah Lambardar, being nephew of the deceased Lambardar – The other criteria’s are by and large comparable -- Discretion exercised by the District Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar has to be accepted, in case it does not suffer from arbitrariness or perverse exercise of power – Held, the District Collector has taken into account the relevant merit factors, the Commissioner, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, committed an illegality in interfering with the same. Ranjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandary, Punjab & Ors., 2011(1) L.A.R. 309 (P&H).

Conduct of candidate -- Petitioner is residing in other village -- Petitioner has got prepared his ration card and voter list in both villages which puts question mark on his trustworthiness – District Collector rightly ignored the petitioner – Collector’s order confirmed by Commissioner -- No illegality/irregularity or any perversity in the order of lower revenue Courts. Sukhdev Raj v. Ranjit Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 84 (FC Pb.).

Defaulter of loan -- Collector appointed the candidate, who had mortgaged his property and is defaulter of loan -- Commissioner has rightly set aside the order of District Collector and appointed respondent as Lambardar. Gurnam Singh v. Ajaib Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 665 (FC Pb.).

Educational Qualification – Consideration of -- Collector, being the appointing authority, was required to consider the relative merits, in the context of educational qualification, for discharge of duties by the incumbent Lambardar, as provided under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 422 (P&H).

Exercise of discretion by the Collector is always preferred – High Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the view expressed by the departmental authorities. Ruldu Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 82 (P&H DB).

Financial Commissioner and the Commissioner have taken into account the comparative merit of both the persons -- Petitioner is 49 years of age, appointed candidate is 28 years of age -- Both the candidates are matriculates -- In addition, appointed candidate has donated blood and is President of Guru Ravidas Mandir of the village and therefore, has been found to be serving the society – No reason to judicially review the well founded orders passed by the authorities. Raj Kumar v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 159 (P&H).

Heart Patient – Merely that a person is a heart patient is not sufficient to deprive him of the appointment unless the ailment is to such an extent that he is unable to perform duty. Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 432 (P&H).

Hereditary claim -- As the Collector granted the benefit of hereditary claim to the petitioner and ignored the better qualifications of respondent, the Commissioner rightly set aside the appointment of the petitioner and appointed respondent as the Lambardar. Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 607 (P&H).

Hereditary claim – In Karnail Singh’s case, 1973 PLJ 676 it was held by Division Bench that preferential right to appointment on the basis of his hereditary claim is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution – Findings in Harsharan Singh's case, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 909 that precedence is to be accorded to hereditary claims being contrary to the Division Bench judgment cannot be cited as a binding precedent. Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 607 (P&H).

Hereditary claim -- Petitioner’s father was sarbrah lambardar and his grand-father was a lambardar, but he had no experience of working as a lambardar – Accordingly, petitioner’s inheridatory claim for lambardari was not required to be taken into consideration. Rajinder Singh v. Pipal Singh, 2011(1) L.A.R. 88 (FC Pb.).

Jurisdiction of Appellate/ Revisional Authority -- Collector being a revenue officer at the district level is best aware of requirement of appointment of Lambardar for a particular village considering the comparative merit of the candidates who appear before him -- Unless discretion has been exercised perversely, arbitrarily or for malafide reasons, the order is not required to be interfered with. Krishan Lal v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 243 (P&H).

Land ownership – Requirement of -- Petitioner failed to show that he owned land in his name on the day when the applications for the post of Lambardar were called -- His father may have owned land in that revenue estate, but rules demand that the interested candidate must own land in that revenue to which the post of Lambardar pertains -- Petitioner fails this basic test -- Appointment of respondent as Lambardar upheld. Jasbir Singh v. Joginder Pal, 2011(1) L.A.R. 377 (FC Pb.).

Panch of Village – Member Panchayat -- Rule 15 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules does not provide for any disability to be appointed as Lambardar, in case such a person is a Member Panchayat -- Rather, it would be a qualification if the person has personal influence, character and ability -- Panch of the village indicates better qualification, in terms of Rule 15 (d) and (e). Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab & Others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 422 (P&H).

Qualification -- Land holdings -- Basic qualification equal, respondent has substantially more land as compared to the petitioner viz. 54 kanal more than the petitioner -- It is a relevant criteria to be considered in exercise of discretion and calls for no interference. Krishan Lal v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 243 (P&H).

Review – Power to review can only be exercised if conferred by statute or by rule -- In the absence of any provision in the Chowkidara Rules, conferring the power of review upon the S.D.M. or upon the D.C. to grant a permission to review an order, they cannot pass such orders – SDM and the D.C passed the orders under a mistaken belief that they are exercising powers under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, which confers such a power -- Review orders are a nullity and must, therefore, be set aside. Gurjant Singh v. Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 199 (P&H).

Sarbrah Lambardar – Merely because the appellant has been working as a Sarbrah Lambardar would not be a sole factor to nullify the other relevant consideration. Ruldu Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 82 (P&H DB).

Serving employee – Suitability of -- District Collector held that petitioner is working in P.S.E.B. cannot remain available to the villagers on Lambardari job, and therefore, is not a suitable candidate for the post – Finding upheld by Commissioner and Financial Commissioner -- Petitioner is serving on a transferable post, no reason to differ with the findings. Tek Singh v. State of Punjab & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 165 (P&H).

Speaking order – Collector passed the order for appointment of Lambardar, however particulars of the other candidate not taken into consideration while making appointment – Comparative merits of both the candidates not considered – Financial Commissioner remanded the case back to Collector – No legal flaw in the order of Financial Commissioner. Het Ram v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 308 (P&H).

Summoning in a criminal complaint for a cognizable offence in which the police did not take any action cannot be considered to be an incident serious enough to ignore the claim -- If conviction is recorded, the revenue authorities would surely take into account the said fact. Ran Singh v. State of Punjab & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 157 (P&H).

Teacher – Candidature of -- Lambardar is required to remain present, by and large at all hours, in the village for discharge of his duties -- In case the petitioner is appointed as Lambardar, other than the fact that he is required to serve as teacher for fixed hours during the day and is serving on transferable post, he might not be available so as to effectively discharge the duties, as given out in Rule 20, which require day to day presence in the area -- Petitioner might be eligible, however, he is not suitable for being appointed as Lambardar. Bhag Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab & others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 413 (P&H).

Where the choice of the Collector is perverse, arbitrary or violative of any rule, it cannot be final and may, circumstances so permitting be rectified by appellate or revisional authorities. Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(1) L.A.R. 607 (P&H).