Hereditary claim is only one factor and confers no vested right to Lambardar appointment.

The appellant, Gaurav Aneja, claimed appointment as Lambardar of Village Akbarpur alias Murad Majra following the death of his father, Ram Singh, who had held that office.

After the prescribed process, the appellant and Harvinder Singh, respondent no. 2, remained the two candidates. The Collector, Patiala appointed the appellant as Lambardar on 26 August 2014, principally considering his educational qualification and hereditary claim.

On appeal, the Commissioner, Patiala Division set aside the appointment and accepted respondent no. 2’s claim on 12 November 2014.

The Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab dismissed the appellant’s further appeal on 25 February 2020.

The appellant’s writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 24 April 2026, who found the revenue authorities’ orders reasoned and held respondent no. 2 to be suitable for appointment.

Whether the appellant’s hereditary claim, arising from his father’s previous appointment as Lambardar, created a right or sufficiently decisive ground for his appointment as Lambardar?

Whether the revenue authorities and the learned Single Judge properly assessed the candidates’ suitability, including educational qualifications, personal availability in the village, and other factors under the applicable rules?

Whether the learned Single Judge’s refusal to interfere with the orders of the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner disclosed any illegality warranting appellate interference?

The Court applied Section 28(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, which authorises the State Government to frame rules regulating the appointment of village officers.

It relied on Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1909, which requires consideration of factors including hereditary claim, property in the estate, services rendered by the candidate or family, personal influence, character, ability, freedom from indebtedness, community strength, and national service.

The governing principle is that hereditary claim is merely one relevant consideration and is neither the sole nor decisive factor; appointment to the office of Lambardar cannot be claimed as a matter of hereditary right.

The Court also relied on Neeraj Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others, 2013 (4) RCR (Civil) 207, for the principle that the candidate’s availability in the village is a vital factor in determining suitability for appointment as Lambardar.

The Court held that the appellant’s hereditary connection to the office could not, by itself, outweigh the other considerations prescribed under Rule 15.

The Collector had treated the appellant’s alleged educational superiority as significant, but the record showed that the appellant had studied only up to 10+2, contrary to the basis apparently relied upon for his appointment.

The authorities also found that the appellant resided in Patiala city and was not readily available to villagers for their day-to-day requirements, whereas local availability was of paramount importance for a village headman.

Applying the principle in Neeraj Kumar, the Court concluded that respondent no. 2’s suitability was properly accepted by the revenue authorities.

Since the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner had passed reasoned orders and the learned Single Judge found no legal infirmity in them, no ground for appellate interference was established.

Finding no illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24 April 2026 or in the orders of the revenue authorities, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.

All pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.