Paramjit Singh Patwalia, J.@mdashInstant civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 04.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by Collector, appointing respondent No. 4-Ravinder Singh as Lambardar of village Dhanaura, Sub Tehsil Mullana, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala, order dated 21.02.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, and order dated 17.01.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby appeal and revision petition filed by the petitioner have been dismissed, respectively.
2. Brief facts of the case are that to fill up the vacancy caused on account of death of Sardar Singh, Lambardar (general category) of village Dhanaura, Sub Tehsil Mullana, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala, applications were invited from interested persons by making publication/proclamation in the village after obtaining necessary sanction from the Collector. After completing formalities, matter came up for consideration before the Collector. The Collector after appreciating the comparative merit of the candidates found Ravinder Singh-respondent No. 4 to be fit and suitable candidate and vide impugned order dated 04.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) appointed him as Lambardar of the village. Petitioner-Amarjeet Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide order dated 21.02.2012 (Annexure P-3) dismissed the appeal. Petitioner further filed revision before the Financial Commissioner, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2014 (Annexure P-5). Hence, instant writ petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. Only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 is an encroacher upon the panchayat land and referred to proceedings carried out by the panchayat, which have been placed on record as Annexures P-8 and P-9 but has failed to show to this Court that any demarcation was carried out to indicate that respondent No. 4 has actually encroached upon the public land. If at all respondent No. 4 has encroached upon the public land, petitioner will have every right to proceed in accordance with law.
5. A perusal of the record shows that all the authorities have recorded the concurrent findings. The District Collector after appreciating the comparative merits found respondent No. 4-Ravinder Singh to be fit and suitable candidate and appointed him as such. It is a settled principle of law that the choice of the Collector cannot be lightly set aside. It can only be set aside if there is perversity or illegality in the impugned order of the Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the District Collector. The finding of the District Collector has been affirmed by the Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner.
6. In view of law laid down by Hon''ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of
7. In Mahavir Singh''s case (supra) the Supreme Court of India has observed that there should be no interference with the choice made by the Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar even if two views are possible. It is only the prerogative of the Collector to compare the merits of the candidates for appointment to the post of Lambardar. There are concurrent findings recorded by the revenue authorities.
8. In view of above discussion, the present writ petition fails.
9. Dismissed in limine.
10. No order as to costs.
