Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

“Prerogative of District Collector in Nambardar Appointments Must Not Be Disturbed,” Asserts Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the appointment of Harmesh Lal as the Nambardar of village Raipur, Tehsil Balachaur, has been upheld. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj, in the case of Pritam Singh vs. State of Punjab & others (CWP-11505 of 2017), emphasized the significance of the District Collector’s discretion in such appointments. The judgment dated 28.07.2023 underscored, “It is the prerogative of the District Collector. Such an appointment should not be disturbed unless a gross irregularity or error is established.”

The petitioner, Pritam Singh, approached the court, challenging the appointment of respondent Harmesh Lal. Singh contended that Lal did not meet the land ownership criterion by the specified cut-off date and presented himself as a more fitting candidate due to his age, educational background, and past service in the Punjab Police.

However, the Court, referencing the case *Sukhjinder Pal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others*, pointed out that “the appointment of Lambardar is primarily the prerogative and administrative act of the District Collector.” The court further added, referencing *Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram and others*, that age is a significant factor in such appointments.

The bench, after detailed scrutiny, dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the appointment of Harmesh Lal as Nambardar. The judgment underscored that while land ownership remains an important consideration, it cannot be the sole basis for rejection or selection, especially if the Collector deems a candidate otherwise suitable.

Decided on: 28.07.2023

Pritam Singh vs State of Punjab and others 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Document-1-36.pdf"]

Latest Legal News