Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1001 (PNJ)

Sukhjiwan Singh v. Financial Commissioner

2006-03-09

J.S.NARANG, KIRAN ANAND LALL

body2006
Judgment Kiran Anand Lal, J. 1. The District Collector, Mansa, appointed Sukhjiwan Singh petitioner as lambardar of Village Jhunir, vide order dated 16.5.2002, Annexure P1. His brother Balwinder Singh (respondent no.2) was also a candidate for the same post. 2. Since Balwinder Singh could not make it to that post, he challenged the order of the Collector, in appeal. The Commissioner upheld the order of the collector vide annexure P2 and dismissed the appeal. The revision filed by Balwinder singh was, however, accepted by the Financial Commissioner who set aside the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner, and appointed him as lambardar. Sukhjiwan singh has now challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner, in this petition. When the petition was taken up for motion hearing, Mr. N. S. Thind, advocate, appeared on behalf of respondent no.2- Caveator. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The order of the Financial Commissioner appears to be palpably wrong. The name of petitioner, who is the elder son of the deceased lambardar, karnail Singh, had been recommended by the concerned Assistant commissioner-II (Tehsildar) and also the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It was found that he had been assisting his father in the lambardari work. The Collector further found that the petitioner possessed more knowledge than his younger brother, balwinder singh, about the responsibilities attached to the post of lambardar. He owned land and was residing in the residential area of Village Jhunir, whereas the residence of balwinder Singh was in a field, which was 2 kilometers away from the village. 4. The choice of the Collector, therefore, fell on Sukhjiwan Singh petitioner and he appointed him as the lambardar. The Commissioner, too, upheld his order, in appeal. 5. It was held in Sardool Singh vs. Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab, 2000 (2) PLJ 469, that selection of lambardar has to be made by the collector; once selection has been made properly by the Collector, higher authorities can interfere only if the view taken by the Collector is found to be perverse or contrary to law. In another judgment Inder Raj vs. Financial commissioner and others 1994 PLJ 473 it was held that "once the choice made by the Collector is upheld by the Commissioner, the revisional authority should have been circumspect in upsetting the appointment made by the Collector and confirmed by the Commissioner. " 6. In another judgment Inder Raj vs. Financial commissioner and others 1994 PLJ 473 it was held that "once the choice made by the Collector is upheld by the Commissioner, the revisional authority should have been circumspect in upsetting the appointment made by the Collector and confirmed by the Commissioner. " 6. In the case in hand, the view taken by the Collector, while appointing the petitioner as lambardar could not be said to be perverse or contrary to law. The commissioner, too, had confirmed this appointment. There was no material before the Financial Commissioner who was the revisional authority, which could have led him to prefer respondent no.2 over the petitioner, as lambardar. He had, therefore, clearly gone wrong in upsetting the orders of the Collector and the commissioner. 7. The petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed in limine, and it is so ordered. While setting aside the order of the Financial Commissioner, annexure p4, the appointment of the petitioner made by the Collector (and confirmed by the commissioner in appeal) is upheld.