Baljinder Rai vs State Of Punjab Through Secretary Revenue

CWP-94-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
th
Reserved on 7 of August, 2026
th
Pronounced on 5 of November, 2026
th
Uploaded on 5 of November, 2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No
Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes
CWP-94-2024 (O&M)
Baljinder Rai ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. Nitish Garg, Advocate for
Mr. Manu Madaan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate for respondent No.4.
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner assails order dated 05.10.2023
(Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the matter has been
remanded to the District Collector, Fazilka for fresh consideration.
2. After Lambardar of village Chak Bhawra Tehsil Jalalabad,
District Fazilka died, process for a fresh appointment was initiated. Nine
candidates applied. Out of which only five appeared before the Assistant
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 13:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-94-2024 (O&M) 2
nd
Collector 2 Grade. Out of five candidates, District Collector appointed
respondent No.4 as Lambardar vide order dated 19.07.2016 (Annexure P-2).
3. Petitioner assailed order dated 19.07.2016 (Annexure P-2)
passed by Collector before the Commissioner in appeal under Section 13 of
the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1887
Act’).
4. Commissioner dismissed the appeal vide order dated
18.05.2017 (Annexure P-3).
5. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner approached Financial
Commissioner by filing a revision under Section 16 of 1887 Act.
6. Financial Commissioner vide order dated 01.09.2020
(Annexure P-4) quashed the orders passed by Collector, Annexure P-2, and
that by Commissioner, Annexure P-3, observing as under:
“xxx both the orders of the Collector dated 19-7-2016 and
the orders of Commissioner dated 18-5-2017 specifically mention
the experience acquired by the respondent while his grandfather
was Lambardar of the village. Keeping in view the date of birth of
the Respondent and the death of his grandfather, which have not
been rebutted by the Ld. Counsel of the respondent, it is evident
that a 1-2 year old child could not have assisted his grandfather in
the performance of duties of the post of Lambardar. In addition the
petitioner is more educated than the respondent and owns more
land. He has also worked as Sarbrah Lambardar for over 3 years.
The orders of the Collector and of the Commissioner Ferozepur
Division suffer from patent perversity and do not seen to have
properly appreciated relevant factors and the inter-se merit of the
candidates. Therefore the order of Collector Fazilka dated
19.7.2016 and of Commissioner Ferozepur dated 18.05.2017 are
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 13:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-94-2024 (O&M) 3
set aside and the case is remanded back to Collector Fazilka for
fresh decision.”
7. The order was assailed before this Court in CWP No.17675 of
2020. The same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.12.2020
observing as under:
“xxx xxxx xxx
This writ petition is thus dismissed.
Needless to say learned Collector shall decide the matter
afresh without being influenced by any observations other than
regarding experience gained by the petitioner with his grandfather
in respect to the relative merit of the candidate. The matter shall
be decided independently on the basis of material before the
learned Collector.”
8. The Collector vide order dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure P-5)
appointed the petitioner, observing as under:
“xxx the court has reached to the conclusion that no
satisfactory reply has been given by Shri Parwinder Singh
Candidate of his counsel in reply to the objections raised by the
counsel for Shri Baljinder Rai Candidate. So far as there is
question of eligibility of candidate Baljinder Rai, candidate
Baljinder Rai is more educated than other candidate Parwinder
Singh, having more property. The candidate on account of doing
work being Sarbara Lambardar keeps more experience in the work
of Lambardari and does not participate in any political or separatist
party. According to the record of police department, he has good
character nor he is defaulter of any bank/society /institution etc.
Hence, while keeping in view the above mentioned circumstances,
while considering Shri Baljinder Rai for the post of Lambardar, he
is hereby appointed as General Lambardar on the post having
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 13:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-94-2024 (O&M) 4
become vacant on account of death of Shri Suhawa Ram General
Lambardar of Village Chak Bhawra, Tehsil Jalalabad, District
Fazilka.xxx”
9. Respondent No.4 approached the Commissioner by filing an
appeal.
10. The appeal stands dismissed vide order dated 03.03.2022
(Annexure P-6).
11. Respondent No.4 preferred a revision before the Financial
Commissioner, which has been allowed vide order dated 05.10.2023
(Annexure P-1), observing as under:
“xxxx The District Collector, Fazilka fails to consider the
candidature of the petitioner and demerits of the respondent while
appointing the candidate as lambardar of village Chak Bhawra.
The petitioner is 42 years of age young candidate whereas the
respondent is 50 years of age. The petitioner is younger as
compares to the respondent. It is a well settled law that in the
appointment of lambardar younger candidate should be preferred.
As per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as
Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram (SC) R.C.R. (Civil) 759
“Appointment to the post of lambardar, age of candidate is a
relevant factor.” Yet in another judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court cited as Buta Singh vs. Narata Singh,
2007(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 318 it was held that “Age is a relevant
factor to the post of lambardar. Candidate aged 65 years.
Absolutely unfit for the post of lambardar due to his advanced
age. ” Secondly, the petitioner owns 47 Kanal 11 Marla whereas
the respondent owns 31 Kanal 07 Marla of land. Further, the
petitioner who is a Diploma holder in Agriculture is an addition
qualification, which is edge on the respondent. The Tehsildar as
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 13:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-94-2024 (O&M) 5
well as SDM recommended the name of the petitioner but the
District Collector did not take into consideration the
recommendation of the lower revenue Courts.
6. In view of above discussion, the Collector fails to consider
the merits of the petitioner and appointed the non-suitable
candidate as lambardar. It needs fresh consideration. Therefore, I
remand the case back to the District Collector, Fazilka by setting
aside the impugned orders dated 03.03.2022 passed by
Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and order dated
17.12.2020 passed by the District Collector, Fazilka. The
Collector shall appoint the most meritorious candidate after-
reconsidering the inter-se merits of both the candidates, by passing
an appropriate order, in accordance with law.”

12. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order, Annexure P-1,
passed by Financial Commissioner submitting that the choice of the
Collector has been interfered without there being any perversity in the order.
He further submits that respondent No.4 is a convict for offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘1881 Act’). In order to hammer-forth his contention, counsel
relies upon judgment dated 06.12.2022 (Annexure P-7) passed by Judicial
st
Magistrate 1 Class, Jalalabad (W).
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.4 would submit that the Financial Commissioner has merely remanded
the matter to the Collector with a direction to reconsider the inter se merit of
both candidates and appoint the most meritorious candidate. Thus, there is
no scope for interference in the present writ petition.
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 13:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-94-2024 (O&M) 6
14. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone
through records of the case.
15. This is the second round of litigation between the parties. The
inter se comparative merit between the petitioner and the private respondent
as tabulated in the writ petition, reads as under:
Particulars Petitioner Respondent
th
10
Education 10+2, Computer Knowledge
and Junior Course of
Instruction in Home Nursing
Land holding Land measuring 57 Kanals
04 Marlas i.e. land
measuring 31 Kanals 17
marlas standing on the name
of respondent and the
petitioner also inherited land
measuring 25 kanals 07
marlas after the death of his
father
47 kanal 11 marlas of land
Experience and Knowledge
of Lambardari work
Appointed and worked as
‘Sarbah lambardar’ of
village vide order dated
01.01.2008 passed by
District Collector till
10.07.2011 and after that he
worked as ‘Aarji
Lambardar’ of the village
‘Chak Bhawra’ vide order
dated 25.01.2013.
The petitioner also having
knowledge about the
Revenue work and
collection of taxes etc.
Nil
(misleading statement given
before authorities that he
was worked with
Grandfather whereas he was
one year old when his
grandfather was died)
Age at present 52 years old 43 years old
Case of conviction NIL Convicted for an offence
under section 138 of N.I.
Act for two years by the
learned court of Judicial
Magistrate, First Class,
Jalalabad (W) District
Fazilka and also ordered to
pay compensation of
Rs.3,50,000/- with interest
@ 9% P.A. vide order dated
06.12.2022.
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 13:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-94-2024 (O&M) 7
16. The facts tabulated above are not disputed.
17. As per the ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case
of ‘ Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram’, (2009) 3 SCC 439 , the choice of the
Collector in appointing Lambardar need not be interfered till it is found to be
perverse. The Financial Commissioner vide order dated 05.10.2023
(Annexure P-1) interfered merely on the ground that respondent No.4 is 42
years of age whereas the present petitioner is 50 years of age. Similarly, the
petitioner, as per the Financial Commissioner, owns 31 Kanal 7 Marlas of
land whereas respondent No.4 owns 47 Kanal 11 Marlas of land. The same
is disputed by counsel for the petitioner, who claims that the petitioner, in
fact, owns 57 Kanal 4 Marlas of land.
18. Be that as it may, in the considered opinion of this Court the
land holding of the two candidates as well as the difference in their age
being almost equivalent, there was hardly any perversity in the order passed
by the Collector, which could have invited interference from the Financial
Commissioner.
19. Thus, the Financial Commissioner erred in interfering in the
choice made by the Collector without there being any perversity. That apart,
respondent No.4 being a convict for offence punishable under Section 138 of
the 1881 Act, is no less than an embarrassment for him.
20. In view thereof, this Court finds that the impugned order dated
05.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Financial Commissioner, cannot
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 13:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-94-2024 (O&M) 8
be sustained. The same is hereby set aside. Orders passed by the Collector,
dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure P-5) and that by Commissioner, dated
03.03.2022 (Annexure P-6), are maintained.
21. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
November 05, 2026 (Pankaj Jain)
Dpr
Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 13:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document