IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HARDEV SINGH FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS CORAM: Present : HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL] 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari passed by the learned Financial Commissio 2. lambardar proceedings were initiated for filling up the vacancy; wherein, petitioner Hardev Singh and respondent No.4 Upon verification of the antecedents of the candidates, it was reported that IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH HARDEV SINGH Versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Mr. N.P.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Bali, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Isheet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for respondent No.4. HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL] Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 26.07.2018 (Annexure P passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab. Briefly, upon demise of Sh. Karnail Singh, previous of village Bhundri, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, proceedings were initiated for filling up the vacancy; wherein, petitioner Hardev Singh and respondent No.4-Amarjit Singh were also the candidates. Upon verification of the antecedents of the candidates, it was reported that IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-29865-2018 (O&M) Date of decision :30.07.2025 …Petitioner FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), PUNJAB, …Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Mr. B.S. Bali, Addl. A.G., Punjab. for Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature setting aside the order dated 26.07.2018 (Annexure P-6) ner (Appeals), Punjab. Briefly, upon demise of Sh. Karnail Singh, previous of village Bhundri, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, proceedings were initiated for filling up the vacancy; wherein, petitioner- jit Singh were also the candidates. Upon verification of the antecedents of the candidates, it was reported that 6 (O&M) Date of decision :30.07.2025 Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature 6) Briefly, upon demise of Sh. Karnail Singh, previous of village Bhundri, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, - jit Singh were also the candidates. Upon verification of the antecedents of the candidates, it was reported that GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.23 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh one Case No.49/108 under Sections 364, 342 and 324 IPC was found registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet against Amarjit Singh (respondent No.4). 2.1 The learned Tehsildar, Jagraon as well as the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagraon recommended the candidature of Hardev Singh for appointment to the afore-said vacancy and placed the matter before the learned Collector. 2.2 It appears that respondent No.4-Amarjit Singh did not appear before the learned Collector, accordingly, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him and the learned Collector upon considering the merits/de-merits of the candidates, found the petitioner as the suitable candidate and accordingly, appointed him as the lambardar of village Bhundri vide order dated 30.01.2014 (Annexure P-3). 2.3 Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.4 challenged the Collector’s order by filing an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala; however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 12.02.2015 (Annexure P-5). 2.4 Still dissatisfied, respondent No.4 preferred a revision petition (ROR-449-2015) before the learned Financial Commissioner, which came to be allowed vide order dated 26.07.2018 (Annexure P-6); whereby, the matter was remanded to the learned Collector, Ludhiana for deciding the case afresh. 2.5 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court, for the relief/s, as noticed here-in-above. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Financial Commissioner, has erred in law and fact in passing the impugned GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.23 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh order; which is contrary to the well-settled position that in the matter of appointment of lamabardar, the choice of the Collector is not to be lightly interfered with even if two views are possible, unless there is a patent illegality or perversity therein. It is submitted that respondent No.4- Amarjit Singh did not appear before the learned Collector and accordingly, he was proceeded against ex-parte, however, till date, he has never filed any application seeking setting aside of the ex-parte proceedings. It is next submitted that the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No.4 as he is an ex-serviceman and even his name was recommended by the lower revenue officers. It is further submitted that respondent No.4 was involved in a criminal case, therefore, he is not a fit candidate to be appointed as the lambardar. It is also submitted that the learned Financial Commissioner has exercised his jurisdiction in a very casual fashion by setting aside the appointment of the petitioner as lambardar and further remanding the matter to the learned Collector, for fresh decision. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the appointment of the petitioner as lambardar be affirmed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by stating that respondent No.4 has better merits than the petitioner inasmuch that he is younger in age and more educated than the petitioner and that he owns more land than the petitioner. It is further submitted that the learned Financial Commissioner has only remanded the matter to the learned Collector for fresh decision and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. With the afore-said submissions, prayer has been made for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard. GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.23 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh 6. In the present case, the candidature of the petitioner was recommended by the learned Tehsildar as well as the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and the learned Collector had also found the petitioner as a suitable candidate, accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as the lambardar by the learned Collector. The Collector’s choice has been further affirmed by the learned Divisional Commissioner; however, the learned Financial Commissioner has set aside the orders passed by the learned Collector as well as the learned Commissioner and remanded the matter to the learned Collector, for fresh decision, primarily on two grounds; firstly, that the petitioner owns only 1½ acres of land whereas, in the order, he was shown to have 4½ acres of land and secondly, that the petitioner was removed from the service, therefore, the said facts were required to be checked. 6.1 In my considered view, even if the afore-said facts were required to be re-checked, the same could have been easily done by the learned Financial Commissioner himself, rather than setting aside the orders passed by the learned Collector as well as the learned Commissioner and remanding the matter. 6.2 Be that as it may, even if the petitioner owns 1½ acres of land, that does not make him ineligible for appointment to the post of lambardar. It is observed that so far as holding of land is concerned, same is taken into consideration only for the purpose of security towards government revenue collected by the Lambardar. Even if the petitioner owns 1½ acres of land of land, the same would be sufficient to be taken into consideration for the purpose of security of revenue, collected by the Lambardar. Similar view was taken by this Court in Pishora Singh vs State of Punjab, 2015(2) RCR (Civil) 344. Moreover, in case of Gurpreet Singh versus Financial GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.23 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, 2017(1) RCR (Civil) 233, this Court has observed that land revenue stood abolished in both the State of Punjab and Haryana, long back, thus owning land by the candidates for the post of Lambardar would not be of much significance any further. 6.3 As regards the second contention that the petitioner was removed from service; suffice it to say that no material/document has been placed on record by respondent No.4 in support of the said allegation. In the absence of any material on record to suggest that the petitioner was removed from service, the afore-said plea is required to be rejected. 6.4 Furthermore, in the case of Kuldip Singh vs Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab, 2016(1) RCR (Civil) 273; it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that choice of the District Collector cannot be lightly set aside, even if two views are possible, unless there is any patent illegality or perversity therein. It is also well established that the learned Collector is the main authority for appointment of the Lambardar and it is the Collector, who not only appreciates the antecedents of all the candidates in the fray but also personally interacts with them. Thus, the subjective satisfaction of the Collector, is required to be respected. 7. Considering the totality of circumstances, I am of the considered view that petitioner was rightly appointed by learned Collector, Ludhiana, as Lambardar of Village Bhundri, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana; which appointment was upheld by the learned Commissioner, Patiala; however, his appointment was wrongly set aside by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab vide its order dated 26.07.2018 (Annexure P-6). 8. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed and the order dated 30.01.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Collector, GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.23 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh Ludhiana, appointing the petitioner as Lambardar of Village Bhundri, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, is upheld. 9. All pending applications (if any) shall also stand closed. July 30, 2025 (HARSH BUNGER) gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No GURPREET KAUR 2025.09.23 14:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh