REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5552  OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20567/2008)

Ishwar Singh      …Appellant

Versus   Satbir Singh & Ors. …Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

Leave granted.

2. The  controversy  in  this  appeal  by  special  leave  

relates to the appointment of Lambardar for village Pehladgarh,  

Tehsil and District Bhiwani. The said post fell vacant due to the  

death of the then Lambardar on August 1, 2000. Four persons  

applied for that post but later on two candidates withdrew their  

candidature and the present Appellant and Respondent No. 1  

remained for  selection.   The Collector,  Bhiwani  by  his  order

dated December 15, 2005 considered the candidature of these  

two candidates and issued an order of appointment in favour of  

Respondent No. 1 as Lambardar of village Pehladgarh. In the  

opinion of the Collector, Bhiwani, Satbir Singh, Respondent No.  

1, was more suitable. This is how the Collector, District Bhiwani  

considered comparative merits of these two candidates :   

“……….I  have  come  to  conclusion  that  Satbir  Singh  candidate is a suitable candidate. He is Matric pass and has  passed the B.A. from Military. He has 7 acres of land which  is sufficient for filing taxes. Satbir Singh candidate is younger  in  age  than  the  other  candidate  and  being  healthy  and  active,  he  is  capable  to  perform  the  job  of  Lambardari  effectively. Shri Ishwar Singh candidate has cut the green,  neem tree from the panchayat land and the allegation was  leveled upon his brother Sudesh for cutting neem tree as his  family members namely Sube Singh as the Sarpanch. It is  thus clear  that  Ishwar Singh candidate  is  not  person of  a  clean  antecedents.  Therefore  on  the  basis  of  the  above  mentioned facts Shri Satbir Singh son of Shri Ram Jiwan is  appointed as Lambardar of village at the place of Siri Chand  deceased Lambardar of village Pehladgarh”

3. The present appellant assailed the aforesaid order of the  

Collector,  District  Bhiwani  by  filing  an  appeal  before  the  

Commissioner,  Hissar  Division.  The  Commissioner,  Hissar  

Division did not agree with the view of the Collector, Bhiwani in  

respect  of  suitability  of  the  present  Respondent  No.  1.  The  

Commissioner, Bhiwani held :  

2

“……….From the perusal of the record, it is found that  the appellant has more land than the respondent and he is  B.A. pass and retire from the Military service as Honorary  Captain, whereas the respondent is Matriculate and retire as  Havaldar. The appellant remained Sarbrah Lamberdar of his  father  for  many  years  and  he  has  the  experience  of  Lambardar.  No document  was produced on the file  which  can  prove  the  illegal  possession  of  the  appellant.  The  allegation against the appellant for cutting the green neem  tree from the panchayat land is also not proved whereas the  Collector  did  not  accept.  The  appellant  having  the  good  antecedents  on  this  basis,  which  is  not  legally  justified.  Besides  this,  Tehsildar  Bhiwani  and  S.D.O.(civil),  Bhiwani  have also recommended the name of the appellant for his  appointment.  Though  the  Collector  is  the  appointing  authority of the post and his order should not be interfered in  general  conditions  but  I  do  not  find  that  the  order  of  Collector, Bhiwani is not justified on the grounds mentioned  above and I  hereby set  aside on this ground and appoint  appellant-Shri  Ishwar  Singh  as  Lambardar  of  village  Pehladgarh.”

4.  The Respondent No. 1 challenged the order of the  

Commissioner,  Hissar  Division  by  filing  a  Revision  Petition  

before  the Financial  Commissioner,  Government  of  Haryana.  

The  Financial  Commissioner  in  his  order  dated  January  18,  

2008, after hearing the parties, found no reason to interfere with  

the order of the Commissioner, Hissar Division. In the opinion of  

the Financial Commissioner, Government of Haryana, the order  

of the Collector was perverse and illegal and, therefore, rightly  

set  aside  by  Commissioner,  Hissar  Division.  The  Financial  

Commissioner considered the matter thus :  

3

“It is well settled law that the order of Collector should  not be interfered with unless there is perversity or illegality  therein.  I  am  also  of  the  opinion  that  mere  allegation  of  cutting  of  tree-which  was  not  substantiate  subsequently  should not have been the basis of Collector’s conclusion that  the respondent did not possess a good image. This clearly  shows that the Collector has not applied his mind judiciously  and his order is perverse and illegal and, therefore, rightly  set aside by the Commissioner.

Further,  what  clinches  the  issue  in  favour  of  respondent  is  his  active  participation  in  social  service  by  donating blood twice and organizing a Blood Donation Camp  and  also  motivating  cases  for  Family  Planning.  All  other  qualifications  being  almost  similar,  age  factor  only  cannot  weigh in favour of petitioner because he has not rendered  the  kind  of  social  service  and  assistance  in  Government  sponsored  programmers  as  has  been  done  by  the  respondent. In view of this, I am of the opinion that the order  of the Collector was rightly set aside by the Commissioner  and the respondent was a better candidate to discharge the  functions of a Lambardar.”

5. The order  passed by the Financial  Commissioner  

was challenged by the Respondent No. 1 in the writ  petition  

before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court  

upturned the orders of the Financial Commissioner as well as  

Commissioner,  Hissar  Division and restored the order  of  the  

Collector, District Bhiwani. The High Court held thus :  

4

“The  Commissioner  and  Financial  Commissioner  have reversed the order of the Collector only on the ground  that respondent No. 4 has more land and passed BA and  was retired from Military Service as Honorary Capt., whereas  petitioner  is  Matriculate  and  retired  as  Havaldar.  The  Collector  has  given  a  specific  finding  that  petitioner  is  Matriculate and B.A. from Military and is younger in age and  possesses more land in comparison to respondent  No.  4.  Moreover, contribution of the petitioner in social activities is  much  more  than  respondent  No.  4  as  petitioner  has  deposited Rs. 1.30 lacs with Small Saving Scheme and is a  Member of Red Cross Society and has also constructed a  room in village school. In addition also, the petitioner seems  to be more active and energetic and as such he has rightly  been appointed by the Collector being more meritorious.

It is a settled law that choice of the Collector should  not  be  interfered  with  unless  the  same  is  perverse  or  violative of any rule or procedure. Moreover, there is nothing  in  the  orders  passed  by  the  Commissioner  as  well  as  Financial  Commissioner  that  choice  of  the  Collector  is  perverse, violative or against any rules or procedure.”   

6. The Lambardar is a village headman. His main job  

is the collection of revenue. He is paid fixed remuneration as  

well as some commission. The criterion for appointment to the  

post of Lambardar, inter-alia, includes educational qualification,  

age, experience in working of Lambardari,  land and property,  

character, ability and freedom from indebtedness.  

7. In  Mahavir  Singh  v.  Khiali  Ram and  Others1 this  

Court  was  concerned  with  the  controversy  relating  to  

appointment  of  Lambardar  under  Punjab Land Revenue Act,  

1887  and  rules  framed thereunder.  The court  held  that  with  1 (2009) 3 SCC 439

5

regard  to  the  appointment  of  a  Lambardar  in  the  State  of  

Punjab,  age  of  a  candidate  is  a  relevant  factor.  This  court  

noticed few old cases of Lahore High Court which throw some  

light on the subject thus :  

“15.  In  Lt. Malik Abbas Khan v.  Ghulam Haidar (1940 Lah  LT 25) it was stated: “…  It  is  certainly  not  wise,  save  in  very  exceptional  circumstances, to appoint for the first time, an Inamkhor or  Zaildar whose age is 60 or more.”

16. In Kalyan Singh v. Haidar (1928 Lah LT 33) the Financial  Commissioner  held  that  ordinarily  the  Collector’s  choice  appointing a Zaildar or Sufedpost should not be interfered  with  even though  the  appellate  authority  believes  that  his  choice was not the best choice.

17.  Similar  view was expressed in  Lila  Ram v.  Asa Ram  (1955 Lah LT 29)  in the following terms:  “2.  … While  it  is  now an  established  principle  that  there  should  be  no  interference  with  the  choice  made  by  the  Collector, it does not follow that where the Collector’s order  is based on a misrepresentation of facts, there should still be  no interference.”

8. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and  

the  learned  Senior  Counsel  for  Respondent  No.  1  and  their  

respective contentions. The High Court in the impugned order  

observed that there was nothing in the orders passed by the  

Commissioner  as  well  as  Financial  Commissioner  that  the  

choice of the Collector is perverse, violative or against in rules  

or procedure. This is apparently founded on erroneous premise.  

6

The  Financial  Commissioner  has  categorically  held  that  the  

Collector  did  not  apply  his  mind judiciously  and his  order  is  

perverse and illegal. The High Court seems to have overlooked  

the  aforesaid  observation.  Whether  Financial  Commissioner  

was justified in his observation or not is altogether a different  

matter.  We  even  do  not  suggest  for  a  moment  that  within  

permissible limits of judicial review, the orders of the Financial  

Commissioner  and  Commissioner  could  not  have  been  

interfered with, but then the High Court must have given cogent  

and convincing reasons for such interference. We find that the  

impugned order lacks in that.  As the matter needs to be re-

examined by the High Court afresh, we refrain from dealing with  

the  matter  further  and  leave  the  parties  to  agitate  their  

contentions before the High Court.

9. Appeal  is,  accordingly,  allowed and  the  judgment  

dated April 11, 2008 passed by the High Court is set aside. Writ  

Petition (Civil)  No. 1672 of 2008 is restored to the file of the  

High Court  for  fresh consideration and decision.  Needless to  

say  that  the  contentions  of  the  parties  are  kept  open  to  be  

agitated  before  the  High  Court  which  obviously  would  be  

7

decided  on  their  own merits.  We request  the  High  Court  to  

decide the aforesaid writ  petition as expeditiously as may be  

possible.  Parties will bear their own costs.

……………………J (Tarun Chatterjee)

…….……………..J         (R. M. Lodha)

New Delhi August  17,  2009.

8