P&H HC Restores Baljinder Rai’s Lambardar Appointment, Finding No Perversity In Collector’s Choice Over Section 138-Convicted Rival

In brief

The question

Whether the Financial Commissioner was justified in interfering with the Collector’s appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar and remanding the matter absent perversity in the Collector’s decision.

The court held

The Court held that the Financial Commissioner erred in remanding the matter without finding perversity in the Collector’s decision.

It also directed

It set aside the Financial Commissioner’s order dated 5 October 2023 and maintained the Collector’s order appointing the petitioner and the Commissioner’s order dismissing respondent No. 4’s appeal. The writ petition was allowed.

01Facts

After the village Lambardar died, the District Collector appointed respondent No. 4.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

The petitioner challenged that appointment; the Financial Commissioner set it aside and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

pp. 2–5 · ¶ 2–11

Following an earlier remand, the Collector appointed the petitioner, and the Commissioner dismissed respondent No. 4’s appeal. On respondent No. 4’s revision, the Financial Commissioner again remanded the matter, citing respondent No. 4’s younger age, greater landholding, and agricultural diploma.

pp. 2–5 · ¶ 2–11

The petitioner challenged that second remand, arguing that the Collector’s choice was not perverse and pointing to respondent No. 4’s conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

p. 5 · ¶ 12

02Issues

i.Whether the Financial Commissioner was justified in interfering with the Collector’s appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar and remanding the matter absent perversity in the Collector’s decision.

pp. 5–7 · ¶ 12–19

ii.Whether respondent No. 4’s conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was relevant to the challenge to his suitability.

p. 5, 7 · ¶ 12, 19

03Law Applied

Under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, appeals and revisions concerning Lambardar appointments lie under Sections 13 and 16, respectively.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3, 5

The Court relied on Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram, (2009) 3 SCC 439, for the principle that the Collector’s choice in appointing a Lambardar should not be interfered with unless it is found to be perverse.

p. 7 · ¶ 17

The writ petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Punjab Land-Revenue Act, 1887 Section 13 Section 16

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

04Reasoning

The Financial Commissioner’s remand rested principally on the candidates’ age and landholding, and on respondent No. 4’s additional qualification.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 11

The High Court held that the candidates’ landholdings and age difference were, in the circumstances, broadly comparable, and that these factors did not disclose perversity in the Collector’s choice.

p. 7 · ¶ 17–19

The Financial Commissioner therefore lacked sufficient basis to interfere with that choice.

p. 7 · ¶ 17–19

The Court also noted respondent No. 4’s Section 138 conviction as an embarrassment to him, without treating it as a separate statutory disqualification.

p. 7 · ¶ 19