CWP-3282-2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 228 CWP-3282-2018 Date of decision : 14.07.2026 Pawan Kumar ...... Petitioner versus Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Chetan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab. Mr. J.R. Syal, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 27.07.2017 passed by the Financial Commissioner affirming the orders passed by Commissioner dated 11.03.2016 and order dated 20.09.2011 passed by the District Collector, Hoshiarpur, appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar of village Bhanowal, District Hoshiarpur. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the candidature of the petitioner was recommended by the Naib Tehsildar, yet the Collector appointed respondent No.4, despite the fact that she is not the resident of village Bhanowal. Per 3. contra, counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that prior to passing of the order, a report was called from concerned SHO. It is only after confirming and verifying that respondent No.4 is resident of DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.17 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3282-2018 village Bhanowal that she was appointed as Lambardar having been more meritorious as compared to the petitioner.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. 5. The District Collector while appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar vide order dated 20.09.2011 has observed as under:-“xx xx xx

I find that Sushil Kumari is the best candidate for the post of Lambardar. She is 58 years old and is very much fit to discharge the functions of Lambardar. She is more educated than other candidates. She is M.A. Political Science and History and having passed B.Ed. degree whereas the other candidates Ashok Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Ravinder Singh are 9th pass and Sushma Devi is B.A. Part-1 pass. Sushil Kumari has more land in the village than other candidates. She is the owner of 8 acres and 4 kanals of land whereas Ashok Kumar and Pawan Kumar own 6 acres of land, Ravinder Singh owns 4 acres of land and Sushma Devi is the owner of 6 kanals of land. It has been brought on the file that Sushil Kumari remained member panchayat of village Bhanowal for two terms for a long time of ten years and now she is also the member of gram panchayat. She remained volunteer of Sarv Sikhiya Abhiyan and she was appreciated by the then Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur. She also helped in organisation Heath and Family welfare department camps. She has the capacity and will to donate handsomely towards the common cause. No such traits have been found in the other persons. Rather Sushma Devi has encroached upon the shamlat land of the village. However she claimed that an exchange was affected regarding land between her father Joginder Singh and Gram Panchayat Bhanowal on dated 24-12-1987 and she shows the photocopy of resolution dated 24-12-1987 without attestation by any competent authority. She has also concealed the facts regarding her land in the village. A person who is not forthcoming and tries to conceal the facts from the court is certainly not a good candidate for the post of village Lambardar.DINESH KUMAR

2026.07.17 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3282-2018 9. The learned counsel for Pawan Kumar had alleged that Sushil Kumari is not the resident of village Bhanowal and she is living ward no.11 at Hoshiarpur. But from a cursury perusal of the latest voter list of the village Bhanowal it is clear that she is duly entered as a voter of the village. Moreover she is having her ration card in village Bhanowal and her passport shows the permanent address of village Bhanowal. As per report of S.H.O. of Police station Garhdiwala she is the resident of village Bhanowal. Furthermore she remained a member panchayat of the village for two terms and now she is again the member of gram panchayat. All these facts prove that she is the resident of village Bhanował and has good influence in the village.” 6. In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Collector, this Court finds that the Collector was aware of the comparative merits of the candidates. It is only after evaluating their comparative merits that the order appointing respondent No.4 was passed. The plea raised with respect to respondent No.4 being not resident of village Bhanowal, was found to be incorrect after the report was called from SHO, Police Station Garhdiwala. That apart respondent No.4 has continued to work as Lambardar for last 15 years, without there being any complaint with respect to her availability to the residents of the village.

7. In view thereof, this Court finds no merits in the present writ petition. The same is ordered to be dismissed. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 14.07.2026 Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.17 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-3282-2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 228 CWP-3282-2018 Date of decision : 14.07.2026 Pawan Kumar ...... Petitioner versus Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Chetan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab. Mr. J.R. Syal, Advocate for respondent No.4. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 27.07.2017 passed by the Financial Commissioner affirming the orders passed by Commissioner dated 11.03.2016 and order dated 20.09.2011 passed by the District Collector, Hoshiarpur, appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar of village Bhanowal, District Hoshiarpur. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the candidature of the petitioner was recommended by the Naib Tehsildar, yet the Collector appointed respondent No.4, despite the fact that she is not the resident of village Bhanowal. Per 3. contra, counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that prior to passing of the order, a report was called from concerned SHO. It is only after confirming and verifying that respondent No.4 is resident of DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.17 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3282-2018 village Bhanowal that she was appointed as Lambardar having been more meritorious as compared to the petitioner.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. 5. The District Collector while appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar vide order dated 20.09.2011 has observed as under:-“xx xx xx

I find that Sushil Kumari is the best candidate for the post of Lambardar. She is 58 years old and is very much fit to discharge the functions of Lambardar. She is more educated than other candidates. She is M.A. Political Science and History and having passed B.Ed. degree whereas the other candidates Ashok Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Ravinder Singh are 9th pass and Sushma Devi is B.A. Part-1 pass. Sushil Kumari has more land in the village than other candidates. She is the owner of 8 acres and 4 kanals of land whereas Ashok Kumar and Pawan Kumar own 6 acres of land, Ravinder Singh owns 4 acres of land and Sushma Devi is the owner of 6 kanals of land. It has been brought on the file that Sushil Kumari remained member panchayat of village Bhanowal for two terms for a long time of ten years and now she is also the member of gram panchayat. She remained volunteer of Sarv Sikhiya Abhiyan and she was appreciated by the then Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur. She also helped in organisation Heath and Family welfare department camps. She has the capacity and will to donate handsomely towards the common cause. No such traits have been found in the other persons. Rather Sushma Devi has encroached upon the shamlat land of the village. However she claimed that an exchange was affected regarding land between her father Joginder Singh and Gram Panchayat Bhanowal on dated 24-12-1987 and she shows the photocopy of resolution dated 24-12-1987 without attestation by any competent authority. She has also concealed the facts regarding her land in the village. A person who is not forthcoming and tries to conceal the facts from the court is certainly not a good candidate for the post of village Lambardar.DINESH KUMAR

2026.07.17 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3282-2018 9. The learned counsel for Pawan Kumar had alleged that Sushil Kumari is not the resident of village Bhanowal and she is living ward no.11 at Hoshiarpur. But from a cursury perusal of the latest voter list of the village Bhanowal it is clear that she is duly entered as a voter of the village. Moreover she is having her ration card in village Bhanowal and her passport shows the permanent address of village Bhanowal. As per report of S.H.O. of Police station Garhdiwala she is the resident of village Bhanowal. Furthermore she remained a member panchayat of the village for two terms and now she is again the member of gram panchayat. All these facts prove that she is the resident of village Bhanował and has good influence in the village.” 6. In view of the aforesaid observations made by the Collector, this Court finds that the Collector was aware of the comparative merits of the candidates. It is only after evaluating their comparative merits that the order appointing respondent No.4 was passed. The plea raised with respect to respondent No.4 being not resident of village Bhanowal, was found to be incorrect after the report was called from SHO, Police Station Garhdiwala. That apart respondent No.4 has continued to work as Lambardar for last 15 years, without there being any complaint with respect to her availability to the residents of the village.

7. In view thereof, this Court finds no merits in the present writ petition. The same is ordered to be dismissed. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 14.07.2026 Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.17 18:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document