IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 22972 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.09.2011 Jarnail Singh ...Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Appeals II Punjab etc. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. R.S. Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl. AG, Punjab for the State. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for respondent No. 4. RANJIT SINGH J. C.M. No. 12935 of 2011 Document taken on record. Application disposed of. C.M. No. 13035 of 2011 Reply taken on record. Application disposed of. Civil Writ Petition No. 22972 of 2010 On a death of Lambardar of the village process was initiated to fill the vacancy of Lambardar of village Haler, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur. Applications were invited. Out of all the applications, the name of the petitioner was recommended by Tehsildar. The District Collector appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar by ignoring the merit of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner held that the petitioner was the better candidate than respondent and had appointed him as Lambardar. The Commissioner had recorded that Civil Writ Petition No. 22972 of 2010 -2- the Collector had wrongly noted that the petitioner was in illegal possession of panchayat land, which is contrary to the factual position. Respondent No. 4 had filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner, who upheld the order passed by the District Collector. The petitioner would urge that he was not in any illegal possession of the panchayat land and this fact was not considered by the Financial Commissioner. The petitioner filed review application, which was declined and, thereafter, has filed the present writ petition before this Court. On 03.03.2011, the District Collector, Hoshiarpur was directed to file an affidavit with regard to the evidence to indicate illegal possession of the land over the gram panchayat land, which was a fact taken into consideration, to decline the appointment to the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner has now filed an affidavit saying that the petitioner is not in illegal possession of any panchayat land. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has placed documents on record, Annxeures R4/1 to R4/3 to submit that the father of the petitioner, Sh. Daya Ram, was in illegal possession of shamlat land and has been cutting wood etc. The affidavit of Sh. Jaswinder Singh is also filed to show that he alongwith some other persons is in illegal possession. Said Sh. Jaswinder Singh is in fact a grandson of Sh. Daya Ram. On this basis, the counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner was in illegal possession of the panchayat land. Civil Writ Petition No. 22972 of 2010 -3- It would not be very appropriate to go into this disputed question of fact in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Since conflicting evidence is placed on record in regard to the aspect of illegal possession of panchayat land by the petitioner, it would be appropriate to remand the case back to the Financial Commissioner, who would hear both the parties and permit them to place on record the relevant material to show whether the petitioner is in any illegal possession or not. The Financial Commissioner will duly take into consideration the affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner indicating that the petitioner is not in any illegal possession. The respondents would be at liberty to show the record indicating that the petitioner is in illegal possession of the panchayat land. The Financial Commissioner may then pass a fresh order in accordance with law and on the basis of material so placed before me. The writ petition is disposed of. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on 14.10.2011. September 19, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE