Choice of Collector

Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of the Collector can be interfered with when higher authorities or this Court come to the conclusion that while taking a decision, the Collector failed to take into consideration the relevant factors or based its decision on extraneous considerations or on irrelevant factors not germane therefor. Mahavir Singh’s case 2009(3) SCC 439 relied. Ram Chander v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 196 (P&H).

Appointment of Lambardar -- Collector is the best judge in the case of appointment to the post of a Lambardar, his decision can be interfered with only if it is perverse in law and on facts. Mohinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 416 (P&H DB).

Appointment of Lambardar – Collector's choice, unless it is vitiated in law and on facts, is not to be interfered in the case of appointment of a Lambardar. Ranjit Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 399 (P&H DB).

Appointment of Lambardar – District Collector appointed the respondent being younger candidate, better qualified and having more land -- District Collector ignored the fact that the petitioner was a mature person of 50 years, remained Sarbrah of the deceased Lamabrdar and having good experience of lambardari and that the petitioner was having 2-1/2 acres of land whereas the respondent had 5-1/2 acres of land, out of which he had mortgaged 3-1/2 acre with the Bank – Held, petitioner is more meritorious than the respondent, revision accepted -- Petitioner is appointed as Lambardar. Kashmir Singh v. Khajan Singh, 2011(2) L.A.R. 563 (FC Pb.).

Appointment of Lambardar – Heart patient – Autorickshaw puller -- Commissioner was not justified in interfering in the choice of the Collector, on flimsy ground that a candidate was plying an autorickshaw and was a heart patient -- On such a ground, choice of the Collector appointing a person, who is Ex-Serviceman and also belongs to the community for which the post is reserved, should not have been interfered – Such interference is an arbitrary and perverse. Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 118 (P&H DB).