Balwant Singh vs State of Haryana and others

J.L. Gupta, J.

Full facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass. Shorn of avoidable details, the case of the petitioner is that by an order of 13th July, 1989 (Annexure P5), the Commissioner had held that "as village Rohan has two lambardars and specially so when the existing lambardar has been involved in crimes." Hazura Singh filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner who by his order of 28th March, 1990 (Annexure P6) reversed the decision of the Commissioner and held that the Commissioner was not justified in passing the order for creation of an additional post of lambardar.

Mr. Verma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the order of the Financial Commissioner is based upon a misreading of the factual position and therefore is wholly untenable. He has also submitted that if the factual position as emanating from Annexures P1 to P4 is taken into consideration, the order of the Commissioner for creating an additional post was amply justified. He has also drawn my attention to Rule 14 of the Punjab land Revenue Rules to contend that the action of the Financial Commissioner was not justified.

On the other hand, Mr. Dogra appearing for respondent No. 4 has contended that rule 14 embodies only an enabling provision. It does not vest a legal right in any citizen to demand the creation of office of lambardar. He has also pointed out that in fact an application had been made for the increase in the number of posts of lambardars in the year 1984 which was rejected by the then Collector on 2nd November, 1984 (Annexure R1). He points out that nothing has happened which may justify the creation of additional post. He has also claimed that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition.

Rule 14 of the Land Revenue Rules provides as under :

"14(i) A sufficient number of headman shall be appointed to every estate, and this number when once fixed shall not be increased except by the order of the Commissioner, nor be reduced except by the order of the Financial Commissioner.

(ii) If an estate or a considerable portion thereof is owned by Government the headman may be appointed from among the tenants. In other estates he shall be appointed from among the landowners :

Provided that where the office of headman has become vacant by the migration of the headman to the Dominion of Pakistan the appointment may be made from among the allottees and the oustees from the Capital site at Chandigarh in accordance with Rule 19A having regard to the other considerations in Rule 15(b), (c), (d) and (e) omitted in Punjab.

(iii) The lessee of the revenue or produce of an uncultivated or forest estate owned by Government shall be during the currency of his lease in Punjab the headman thereof."

As I read it, Rule 14 only embodies an enabling provision by virtue of which it is competent for the Commissioner to determine the number of headmen (Lambardars). It also enables the Financial Commissioner to reduce the number of headmen. However, I find it difficult to read into this rule a right which may entitle a citizen to claim the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the State or the appropriate authority to create an additional post. These are matters of policy. The Court has neither the factual data nor the knowhow to determine the number of posts. It is best to leave it to the authorities concerned.

In this background it would be seen that the on consideration of the matter had come to the conclusion that a case for the creation of an additional post of lambardar was made out. The Financial Commissioner on consideration of the matter has found that in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Commissioner was not justified. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any provision of law which may have been violated in the process. If the petitioner has no indefeasible right and the order of the Financial Commissioner does not violate any provision of law, it appears impossible to grant any relief to the petitioner. Even otherwise, these decisions involve appreciation of facts which is not the function of this Court while deciding a writ petition. It is not hearing an appeal against the order of the Financial Commissioner. In view of the above, I don''t think it is necessary for me to go into the question of locus standi raised by the learned counsel for the respondents.

In find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.