CWP-11500-2025 (O&M) -1- 133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP-11500-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.05.2025 Ranjit Singh ..... Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. DAG, Punjab. ***** HARSH BUNGER J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing order dated 05.12.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.3 appointing respondent No.6 as lambardar of Village Mahal Khurd, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar. A further prayer has been made for setting aside order dated 20.11.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.2 as well as order dated 08.08.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, whereby the appeal and revision petition preferred by the petitioner have been dismissed, respectively. 2. The only submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.6- Vipin Kumar has been appointed to the post of lambardar only on account of the fact that the brother of respondent No.6 is a Patwari in the same village. 3. I have considered the said submissions made by learned counsel HIMANI GUPTA 2025.05.21 09:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-11500-2025 (O&M) -2- for the petitioner, however, I do not find any merit in the same. 3.1 Evidently, learned Collector appointed respondent No.6- Vipin Kumar as lambardar of Village Mahal Khurd, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar after finding him suitable. 3.2 The appointment of respondent No.6 has been affirmed by learned Commissioner by observing as under:- “4. After considering the submissions/assertions put forth by the contestant/s l am of the view that the main contention of the Appellant is that he is more meritorious and much better qualified to be Lambardar on account of his being a Matriculate, being grandson of the deceased Lambardar, having good social standing besides being a farmer who is always present in the village and available to the villagers. The selected candidate has submitted that his being only 5th pass does not in any way go against him as requirement for appointment as Lambardar is being literate and that the same has been upheld by the courts (CWP 28431 of 2017 Gora Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors decided on 07.05.2019). He has agitated that the office of Lambardar is not a hereditary office and hence the Appellant being son of deceased lambardar does not carry weight. Further he has the support and confidence of the notable persons of the village and his name has been duly recommended by the Naib Tehsildar SBS Nagar and SDM SBS Nagar. Perusal of case file and order of Deputy Commissioner cum Collector. SBS Nagar shows that the Deputy commissioner cum Collector SBS Nagar has selected the current incumbent on merits after duly hearing all the contestants and found him to be more capable of performing tasks related to Lambardari effectively. I find no illegality or discrepancy in the impugned order and hence I feel there is no reason to interfere in the same. Otherwise also it is a well established law that decision of Collector regarding Lambardari has to be respected until and unless it is legally perverse and since there is nothing patently illegal in the Order of the Collector hence I uphold it and dismiss the Appeal.” HIMANI GUPTA 2025.05.21 09:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CWP-11500-2025 (O&M) -3- 3.3 Commissioner’s order has been further upheld by learned Financial Commissioner as well. 3.4 There is neither any material on record nor anything has been shown during course of hearing which can remotely suggest that brother of respondent No.6, who is stated to be a Patwari, has exercised any influence in securing appointment for respondent No.6. Mere bald allegations of petitioner in this regard are therefore liable to be rejected. 4. It is well settled that in the matter of appointment of lambardar, choice of Collector should not be lightly interfered with even if two views are possible, unless there is patent illegality or perversity. In this regard reference can be made to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Kuldip Singh Versus Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab, 2016(1) RCR (Civil) 273”. 5. Considering the totality of circumstances, I find no compelling reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of revenue authorities below. Resultantly, the instant writ petition fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 6. All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. 15.05.2025 (HARSH BUNGER) Himani JUDGE 1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable : Yes/No HIMANI GUPTA 2025.05.21 09:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh