Younger Rival Keeps Lambardar Post As P&H HC Upholds Appointment, Finding No Proof Of Alleged Encroachment

In brief

The question

1. Whether the reports relied on by the appellant established that respondent No. 4 had encroached on land, warranting interference with his appointment as Lambardar.

The court held

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the orders appointing respondent No. 4 as Lambardar and rejecting the appellant’s challenges.

It also directed

The application to introduce additional evidence was dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

01Facts

Following the death of the village Lambardar, the District Collector appointed respondent No. 4.

pp. 3–5

The appellant, who had higher educational qualifications, challenged the appointment, alleging that respondent No. 4 had encroached on land.

pp. 3–5

The Commissioner, Financial Commissioner (Appeals), and Single Judge rejected the challenge, finding no cogent evidence substantiating the allegation.

pp. 3–5

In the Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant relied on a spot-inspection report and an SDM report, and argued that the authorities should have directed demarcation of the land.

p. 5

His application to introduce additional evidence was also dismissed.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the reports relied on by the appellant established that respondent No. 4 had encroached on land, warranting interference with his appointment as Lambardar.

pp. 5–6

ii.2. Whether the authorities were required to arrange demarcation of the land to determine the alleged encroachment.

p. 6

iii.3. Whether the orders appointing respondent No. 4 and dismissing the appellant’s challenges warranted interference in the Letters Patent Appeal.

pp. 6–8

03Law Applied

The Court referred to the limited scope of appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent and the applicable Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules, Volume V, Chapter 2, Part C, in dismissing the application to adduce additional evidence.

p. 2

On Lambardar appointments, it relied on Ishwar Singh v. Satbir Singh and the principles drawn from Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram, under which relevant considerations include a candidate’s education, age, experience, land and property, character, ability, and freedom from indebtedness; the Collector’s choice ordinarily should not be interfered with absent a basis for doing so.

pp. 6–7

04Reasoning

The spot-inspection report stated that demarcation could not be conducted because paddy was standing on the land and did not determine either party’s possession.

pp. 5–6

The SDM report recorded that the land was owned and possessed by the Gram Panchayat; neither report established encroachment by respondent No. 4.

pp. 5–6

The Court therefore held that the appellant’s evidence did not support his allegation or require the authorities to arrange demarcation.

p. 6

Applying the principle that the Collector’s choice in a Lambardar appointment should not ordinarily be disturbed, the Court found no sufficient basis to interfere with the concurrent decisions below.

pp. 6–8