Supreme Court of India
ISHWAR SINGHversusSATBIR SINGH & ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 1050
- Decided
- 17 August 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- TARUN CHATTERJEE
Holding
The High Court erred in setting aside the Financial Commissioner’s order without cogent reasons; the order is set aside and the writ petition restored for fresh consideration.
Summary
The dispute concerned the appointment of the Lambardar of village Pehladgarh, Bhiwani. The Collector appointed Satbir Singh, but the appellant Ishwar Singh challenged this appointment. The Commissioner set aside the Collector’s order, appointing Ishwar Singh, and the Financial Commissioner upheld this, finding the Collector’s decision perverse and illegal. The High Court reversed both the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner, restoring the Collector’s appointment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to provide cogent reasons for interfering with the Financial Commissioner’s order and therefore set aside the High Court judgment, remitting the writ petition for fresh consideration. The appeal was allowed, reinstating the Financial Commissioner’s view that the Collector’s order was perverse and illegal.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the orders of the Financial Commissioner and the Commissioner regarding the appointment of the Lambardar.
- Whether the Collector’s appointment of the Lambardar was perverse, illegal, or violative of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and its rules.
- What criteria are relevant for the appointment of a Lambardar and the standard of judicial review applicable to the Collector’s discretion.
Legislation cited
Subjects
LambardarappointmentCollectorjudicial reviewperversityPunjab Land Revenue Actadministrative lawrevenue headman
Judgment
[2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 359
ISHWAR SINGH A
v.
SATBIR SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5552 of 2009)
AUGUST 17, 2009
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
Sefliice law - Appointment - Post of Lambardar -
Collector appointing respondent as lambardar -
Commissioner setting aside the same and appointing C
appellant - Upheld by Financial Commissioner .:.. Jn writ
petition, High Court restoring the order of Collector -
Interference with - Held: Financial Commissioner held that
the Collector did not apply its mind and his order is perverse
and illegal - High Court overlooked the same - It could have D
)
interfered with the order of Financial Commissioner but must
have given cogent and convincing reasons for such
interference - Thus, order of High Court set. aside - Matter
remitted back to High Court for fresh consideration.
E
The question which arose. for consideration in this
appeal was whether the High Court was justified in
setting aside the order of Financial Commissioner as well
as the Commissioner by which appointment of the
respondent as Lambardar by the Collector was set aside
and appellant was appointed as Lambardar; and F
restoring that of the Coltector.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
a
HELD: 1.1. The Lambardar is village. headman. His G
main job is the collection of revenue. He is paid ~ixed
remuneration as well as some commission. The criterion
for appointment to the post of Lambardar, inter-alia,
includes educational qualification, age, experience in
359 H
360 -SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A working of Lambardari, land and property, character,
ability and freedom from indebtedness. [Para 6] (364-E] .).._
l
1.2. The High Court in the impugned order observed •
'
that there was nothing fn the orders passed by the ~
Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner that the
B >
choice of the Collector is perverse, violative or against in
rules or procedure. This is apparently founded on
erroneous premise. The Financial Commissioner ~·
categorically held that the Collector did not apply his ')--'
mind judiciously and his order is perverse and illegal. The
c High Court seems to have overlooked the said
observation. It is not suggested 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
D cogent and convincing reasons for such interference. ... ~
The impugned order lacks in that. The matter needs to I
~
\_
be re-examined by the High Court afresh. The judgment
passed by High Court is set aside and the writ petition is
restored to the file of High Court for fresh consideration.
E (Paras 8 and 9] (365-E-H; 366-A-B]
Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram and Ors. 2009 (3) SCC 439,
refe·rred to.
~ A
Case Law Reference: · '+
F
2009 (3) sec 439 Referred to. Para 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5552 of 2009:
G From the Judgment & Order dated 11.04.2008 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition
No.1672 of 2008. ~
•'
Dinesh Chander Yadav, A.S. Rishi, Dr. Kailash Chand for
H the Appellant.
ISHWAR SINGH v. SATBIR SINGH & ORS. 361
S.B. Sanyal, Dr. K.R. Punia, Santosh Singh, Rakesh A
-4 Mudgal, Sharda Hooda for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
2. The controversy in this appeal by special leave relates
to the appointment of l-ambardar for village Pehladgarh, Tehsil
f' 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 thtt-1r c
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 D
) 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 E
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
1" is younger ·in age than the other candidate and being
healthy and active, he is capable to perform the job of F
Lambardari effectively. Shri lshwar 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 lshwar Singh candidate G
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" H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
8 Commissioner, Bhiwani held :
" .......... From the perusal of the recorddt 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
c and retire as Havaldar. The appellant remained Sarbrah
Lamberdar of his father for many year~ 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
D 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 -
\t
E of the appellant for his appointment. Though the Collector !
is the appointing authority of the post and his order should t
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
.-·
"f
F ground and appoint appellant-Shri lshwar 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.
G
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 J'1e Financial Commissioner, Government of Haryana, the
order of the Collector was perverse and illegal and, therefore,
H
.,
I-
ISHWAR SINGH v. SATBIR SINGH & ORS. 363
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
rightly set aside by Commissioner, Hissar Division. The A
Financial Commissioner considered the matter thus :
"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 8
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, c
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 D
..; 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 E
the order ·at the Collector was rightly set aside by the
Commissioner and the respondent was a better candidate
.. >
to discharge the functions of a Lambardar."
t
5. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner was
F
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
G
"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. H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
c more meritorious.
It is a settled law that choice of the CoUector 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
D 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
E 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 Others 1 this Court
... '1--
F 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 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
G of Lahore High Court which throw some light on the subject thus:
"15. In Lt. Malik Abbas Khan v. Ghulam Haidar(1940 Lah 4
LT 25) it was stated:
H 1. (2009) 3 sec 439.
ISHWAR SINGH v. SATBIR SINGH & ORS. 365
[R.M. LODHA, J.]
"... It is certainly not wise, save in very exceptional A
circumstances, to appoint for the first time, an lnamkhor
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 B
choice appointing a Zaildar or Sufedpost should not be
interfered with even though the appellate authority believes
-f/ 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: c
"2 .... While it is now an established principle that there
should be no interference with the choice made by the
r. Collector, it does not follow that where the Collector's order
is based on a misrepresentation of facts, there should still D
-i 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 E
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 .
-\.'
The Financial Commissioner has categorically held that the
Collector did not apply his mind judiciously and bis order is F
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 G
-r 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 H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
8 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 '-t
decided on their own merits. We request the High Court to
C decide the aforesaid writ petition as expeditiously as may be
possible. Parties will bear their own costs.
N.J. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Lambardar"Sign in to search