Bahadur Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA-2902-2026 (O&M)
Reserved on :05.10.2026
Pronounced on : 30.10.2026
Uploaded on : 30.10.2026
BAHADUR SINGH
...Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH GAUR
Present : Mr. Udit Jain, Advocate and
Mr. Mudit Jain, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
RAJESH GAUR, J.
CM-7095-LPA-2026
Application is allowed, as prayed for.
CM-7097-LPA-2026
The present application has been filed for placing on record
additional evidence as Annexures A-1 and A-2.
No ground is made out for allowing the application.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed in view of the limited scope of the
GURPREET KAUR
2026.10.30 15:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
LPA-2902-2026 (O&M) -2-
proceedings under Clause X of the Letters Patent and the relevant provisions
of the Rules of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, as contained in Volume
V, Chapter 2, Part C, which are reproduced hereinbelow:
1. The paper-book in such appeals shall ordinarily consist of :-
(a) The memorandum of appeal;
(b) A copy of the impugned judgment/order; and
(c) Copies of the judgment/order and documents that were
before the Single Judge.
2. No Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent shall be
received by the office of Registrar (Judicial) unless it is
accompanied by two sets of following documents :-
(a) Memorandum of Appeal (typed/printed);
(b) A certified copy of the impugned judgment/order. In case
exemption from filing the certified copy has been granted, a
downloaded copy from the official website of this Court or a
printed, typed or photocopied version duly attested by the
counsel as a true copy; and
(c) Photocopies of the complete paper-book that was before the
learned Single Judge, including the writ petition, written
statement, replication/rejoinder, if any, along with the
annexures and documents, in two identical sets, duly attested by
the counsel as true copies.
LPA-2902-2026 (O&M)
1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Clause X
of the Letters Patent against the order dated 27.04.2026 passed in
CWP-3339-2026 , whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant assailing
the order dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Financial
Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh, was dismissed.
GURPREET KAUR
2026.10.30 15:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
LPA-2902-2026 (O&M) -3-
1.1 By virtue of the aforesaid order of the learned Financial
Commissioner, orders dated 09.12.2020 (Annexure P-5) and 14.10.2022
(Annexure P-4), passed by the learned District Collector, S.A.S. Nagar and
the learned Commissioner, Rupnagar Division, Rupnagar, respectively, were
upheld.
2. The brief facts of the case that have led to the present discord
are that on 22.11.2018, upon the death of late Shri Baljit Singh, the then
Lambardar of Village Jheurheri, Tehsil and District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali,
the post fell vacant, whereupon the learned Tehsildar, Mohali, initiated
proceedings for a fresh appointment to the said post through Mustri Munadi ,
pursuant to which three candidates, namely, Bahadur Singh (appellant),
Angrej Singh (respondent No. 4) and Harnek Singh, emerged as eligible
candidates.
3. Pursuant thereto, the learned District Collector, S.A.S. Nagar,
fixed a date for hearing, on which the third candidate, namely,
Harnek Singh, withdrew his candidature in favour of respondent No. 4,
leaving the appellant and respondent No.4 as the only two eligible
candidates.
4. It was ascertained during the course of arguments that, although
the appellant possessed higher educational qualifications, having passed the
matriculation examination, respondent No. 4 was considerably younger and
despite having studied only up to Class VII, held more land and belonged to
a family in which the office of Lambardar had been held over generations,
thereby giving him a more comprehensive understanding of the duties and
GURPREET KAUR
2026.10.30 15:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
LPA-2902-2026 (O&M) -4-
responsibilities of the post than the appellant.
5. During the course of the proceedings, the appellant also alleged
that respondent No.4 had encroached upon land, however, the allegation
remained unsubstantiated on record. Subsequently, the learned District
Collector, S.A.S. Nagar, appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal
before the learned Commissioner, Rupnagar Division, Rupnagar, who, vide
order dated 14.10.2022 (Annexure P-4), dismissed the same and upheld the
order passed by the learned District Collector, observing that the appellant
had failed to produce any material or documentary evidence to substantiate
his challenge to the appointment of respondent No.4.
7. The appellant further challenged the order passed by the learned
Commissioner before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals),
Punjab, who observed that both candidates possessed almost equal merit and
that in matters relating to the appointment of a Lambardar, the choice of the
learned District Collector ought not to be interfered with in the absence of
any perversity in the decision. Accordingly, the learned Financial
Commissioner dismissed the appellant’s appeal vide order dated 21.11.2025
(Annexure P-3), further observing that the appellant had failed to place any
substantial material on record to warrant interference with the order passed
by the learned District Collector.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the appellant approached
this Court by way of a writ petition. The learned Single Judge recorded a
GURPREET KAUR
2026.10.30 15:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
LPA-2902-2026 (O&M) -5-
categorical finding that the appellant-petitioner had raised a solitary
contention alleging encroachment by respondent No. 4. However, learned
counsel for the appellant had failed to place any cogent material or
documentary evidence on record to substantiate the said allegation.
Resultantly, while relying upon the judgment in Murti Devi v. State of
Haryana & Ors., LPA-2217-2024 , the learned Single Judge dismissed the
writ petition vide order dated 27.04.2026.
9. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge,
the appellant has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal, primarily
raising the following two grounds:
(i) That the spot inspection report dated 28.09.2020
(Annexure P-1) and the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
dated 09.12.2020 (Annexure P-2) formed part of the record in
the earlier proceedings.
(ii) That, once the aforesaid material relied upon by the
appellant had been placed on record, it was incumbent upon the
authorities to have the alleged encroached area demarcated to
ascertain the true and correct factual position.
10. We, therefore, turn our attention to the primary contention
raised by the appellant qua the aforesaid reports. The report dated
28.09.2020, however, did not establish the ownership or possession of either
party over the land in question, for the reasons recorded therein. The relevant
extract thereof is reproduced as under :-
“Due to the crop of paddy standing on the spot the
demarcation cannot be done. After doing the demarcation of
two area correct thing could be found out that who has
possession on how much area on the spot.”
GURPREET KAUR
2026.10.30 15:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
LPA-2902-2026 (O&M) -6-
10.1 The report dated 09.12.2020 (Annexure P-2) further clarified
the position qua ownership, the relevant extract whereof is reproduced as
under:-
“In connection with the above subject, it is requested that
a report regarding the nambardari of the village Jheurhedi has
been taken from the Block Development and Panchayat Officer,
Kharar and Naib Tehsildar, Mohali. The Block Development
and Panchayat Officer, Kharar has reported that the number
Khasra 53/(5-6) of village Diurheti is owned by the Gram
Panchayat. The possession at the time is of the Gram
Panchayat. Similarly, Naib Tehsildar Mohali has reported that
the type of land number Khasra 53/(0-6) is uncultivable and its
ownership is Gram Panchayat. The entry in the column of
cultivator is also self-cultivated or occupied by the owner.
As per the above, the report is being sent to you for
further action.”
10.2 It is evident from the aforesaid reports that no definitive
conclusion was drawn regarding the alleged encroachment, thereby
rendering the appellant’s contention unsustainable. In these circumstances,
the appellant’s second contention, namely, that the authorities were
duty bound to ensure demarcation of the land, is equally devoid of merit and
does not warrant acceptance.
11. It is further pertinent to draw attention, at this juncture, to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ishwar Singh v. Satbir Singh &
Ors. Law Finder Doc Id # 201344 , which delves into the importance of
factors to be considered in the appointment of Lambardar and
of the Collector's choice in cases of such appointments, by relying upon the
GURPREET KAUR
2026.10.30 15:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
LPA-2902-2026 (O&M) -7-
judgment of Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram and Ors. 2009 (1) RCR (Civil)
757 , the relevant paragraph of which is reproduced as follows:
“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 Others,
2009(1) RCR (Civil) 757 : 2009(1) RAJ 442 : (2009)3 SCC
439 , 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
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.”
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the learned
Single Judge has rightly adjudicated the matter by dismissing the writ
GURPREET KAUR
2026.10.30 15:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
LPA-2902-2026 (O&M) -8-
petition and upholding the orders of the authorities below. Accordingly, the
present appeal is dismissed.
13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
[SUVIR SEHGAL] [RAJESH GAUR]
JUDGE JUDGE
October 30, 2026
gurpreet
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
GURPREET KAUR
2026.10.30 15:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document