Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

“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