JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The post of Lambardar (General Category) of village Bahmanwala, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad, fell vacant on account of death of Kundan Lal. In order to fill up the said vacancy, applications were invited. Af­ter processing the applications, Assistant Collec­tor 2nd Grade, Ratia, vide his order dated 09.03.2004, recommended name of the petitioner to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade who also recommended the name of the petitioner on 31.03.2004, but the Collector, Fatehabad, ap­pointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar vide his order dated 29.07.2004, which was challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal. His appeal was allowed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, on 26.11.2007 and the case was re­manded back to the Collector. After the remand, the Collector appointed the petitioner as Lambar­dar on 29.07.2008. The said order was challenged by respondent No.4 before the Commissioner, who again remanded the matter back to the Collector on 28.11.2008. The Collector, after remand, appointed respondent no-4 as Lambardar vide his order dated 13.01.2009, but the said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal before the Commissioner, which was al­lowed and the matter was remanded back to the Collector on 19.05.2009. After the remand, the Collector again considered the case of the parties and vide his order dated 09.07.2009, appointed the petitioner as Lambardar. This order was chal­lenged by respondent No.4 by way of appeal be­fore the Commissioner, but it was dismissed on 08.09.2009. Respondent No.4 filed revision be­fore respondent No.1, which has been allowed vide his order dated 03.03.2013, which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent No.1 has wrongly recorded a finding that the petitioner is not residing in the village. He has made a reference to various documents, mentioned in the writ petition, to contend that the said documents amply prove that the petitioner is the resident of the village and not the town of Ra­tia. He further submitted that respondent No.4 has been involved in the theft of electricity and could not have been chosen as the headman of the village. 3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. He further submitted that respondent No.4 has been involved in the theft of electricity and could not have been chosen as the headman of the village. 3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. Respondent No.1 has discussed in detail the documents relied upon by the petitioner to prove his residence in the village and has rightly given preference to the report prepared on the spot by the Tehsildar. The perusal of the said report, which is also reproduced in the impugned order, reads thus:­ “11. A perusal of the report of Tehsildar reveals the following: i) He paid a surprise visit to the village to con­duct the enquiry; ii) He found several persons there on the spot (he has included the name of 7 persons); iii) The real brother of the respondent was also present on spot; iv) Electricity connection of the house (pur­ported to be the residence of the respondent) stood in the name of Sh. Vinod Kumar (the brother of respondent): v) The respondent has two more brothers and three of them had jointly owned agriculture land and Vinod looks after the agricultural land management of the joint holding; vi) Vinod told him that the respondent lives with him stays in Ratia where his kids are pursu­ing education as the village school was only up to class 5; vii) Vinod could not produce the Ration Card on the pretext that other members of the family were not present; viii) In the meanwhile the respondent also ap­peared and informed that he had gone to Ra­tia in connection with some important work; ix) Other persons present on the spot, on en­quiry, revealed unanimously (all the re­spectables said in one voice) that only Vinod lives ordinarily in the house and the respon­dent lives in Ratia where he runs a Tyre shop and the agricultural activities related to the family is looked after by Vinod and the re­spondent visits the house very occasionally and the respondent originally resides in Tibba Colony at Ratia with his family and his kids study in DA V School, Ratia; Thereafter the Tehsildar proceeded to Ratia and conducted an enquiry around the Tyre Shop (purportedly owned by the respondent) and the neighboring shopkeepers revealed that: i) The Tyre House is run by the respondent and his brother Ramesh helps him in the said en­deavor; ii) Ramesh was present on the spot who revealed that the shop belongs to the respondent and he is also a stakeholder in the shop and he re­sides in Tibba Colony; Based on these evidence elicited during the course of enquiry, the Tehsildar concluded that it can be held with certain and definite degree of confidence that the respondent himself lives in Ratia as to run a shop is pretty difficult without residing in Ratia, however, it is a different matter that he occa­sionally visits the village. Thus, affirmed the Tehsildar that it can be held with certain and definite degree of confidence that the re­spondent ordinarily resides in Ratia.” 5. Thus, affirmed the Tehsildar that it can be held with certain and definite degree of confidence that the re­spondent ordinarily resides in Ratia.” 5. Respondent No.1 also analysed the report of the Tehsildar in the context of impartiality and observed as under: “The report of Tehsildar, however, allays the suspicion of being as biased and motivated as is being pleaded to be considered at least on the following counts: i) There was no cause for him to have mentioned that the respondent himself made an appear­ance while he was conducting the enquiry on the spot; ii) The details of electricity connection and mention of Ration Card was not necessary to be included; iii) The averments of the brother of the respon­dent, forcefully asserting that the respon­dent staved with him in the village while his family staved in Ratia, were not necessary to be included in such great details; iv) The names of several of the people present on the spot with their waldiat recorded me­ticulously were not necessary to be in­cluded.” These aspects and circumstances go on to estab­lish that the Tehsildar did indeed visit the spot and the report is a true description of what he found and concluded. Mentioning ‘all the respectable said in one voice’ or ‘the prominent people shouted in a chorus’ was clearly a collocation and not reflecting lit­eral meaning.” 6. I fully endorse the view taken by the Financial Commissioner in this regard and approve the same. 7. Insofar as the matter of theft of electricity is concerned, it has been rightly observed by the re­spondent No. I that the same has already been compounded much before the matter was placed before the Court for the purpose of adjudication and cannot be given weightage in favour of the petitioner and against respondent No.4. 8. It is needless to mention that the availability of a person in the village seeking appointment as Lambardar is a most relevant factor in view of the nature of duties which are to be performed by the Lambardar, as enshrined in Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (as applicable to Haryana), which are reproduced as under: “20. 8. It is needless to mention that the availability of a person in the village seeking appointment as Lambardar is a most relevant factor in view of the nature of duties which are to be performed by the Lambardar, as enshrined in Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (as applicable to Haryana), which are reproduced as under: “20. Duties of headman.- In addition to the du­ties imposed upon headman by law for any purpose, a headman shall­- (i) collect by due date all land revenue and all sums, recoverable as land revenue from the estate, or sub-division of an estate in which he holds office, and pay the same personally or by revenue money order or by remittance of currency notes through the post or at places where treasury business is conducted by the State Bank of India or any Scheduled Bank as notified by the State Government from time to time, by cheque on a local Bank at the place and time appointed in that behalf to the Revenue Officer or assignee empow­ered by Government to receive it; (ii) collect the rents and other income of the common land, and account for them to the persons entitled thereto; (iii) acknowledge every payment received by him in the books of the landowners and ten­ants; (iv) defray joint expenses of the estate and ren­der accounts thereof as may be duly required of him; (v) report to the tehsildar the death of any as­signee of land revenue or Government pen­sioner residing in the estate, or the marriage or re-marriage of a female drawing a family pension and residing in the estate; or the ab­sence of any such person for more than a year; (vi) report to the tehsildar and Collector all encroachments on and injury to the roads, public streets and Government, Nazul and panchayat land; (vii) report any injury to Government buildings made over to his charge; (viii) carry out, to the best of his ability, any or­ders that he may receive from the Collector requiring him to furnish information or to assist in providing on payment supplies or means of transport for troops or for officers of Government on duty; (ix) assist in such manner as the Collector may from time to time direct at all crop inspec­tions, recording of mutations, surveys, preparation of records of right, or other reve­nue business carried on within the limits of the estate; (x) attend the summons of all authorities having jurisdiction in the estate, assist all officers of the Government in the execution of their public duties, supply, to the best of his abil­ity any local information which those offi­cers may require, and generally act for the landowners, tenants and residents of the es­tate or sub-division of the estate in which he holds office in their relations with Govern­ment; (xi) report to the patwari any outbreak of disease among animals (or human beings). (xii) report to the patwari the deaths of any right­-holders in their estates. (xiii) report any breach or cut in a Government Irrigation canal or channel to the nearest ca­nal officer (or canal patwari). (xiv) under the general or special directions of the Collector, assist by the use of his per­sonal influence and otherwise all officers of Government and other persons, duly author­ized by the Collector, in the collection and enrolment of recruits for military service whether combatant or non-combatant. (xv) render all possible assistance to the village postman, while passing the night in the vil­lage, in safeguarding the cash and other valuables that he carries.” 9. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid duties, if a person is not available throughout the day in the village, there is no assistance either to the villag­ers or to the revenue officers and then office of the Lambardar cannot be given to such a person only to satisfy his ego or as a matter of decora­tion. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, finding no error in the impugned order, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed. ----------------------- Ajay Bansal v. State of Punjab