LPA No.56 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.56 of 2009 Date of decision : 28-4-2009 Ram Avtar ....Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate, for respondent No.5. J.S. KHEHAR, J. The issue pertains to the appointment of Lambardar of village Gajjiwas. The pleadings of the case reveal that there were three contenders for the said assignment namely, the appellant - Ram Avtar, respondent No.5 Balwant Singh and respondent No.6 Anil Kumar. Out of the claimants, only respondent No.5 Balwant Singh belongs to village Gajjiwas whereas neither the appellant Ram Avtar nor respondent No.6 Anil Kumar belong to the said village. Both these individuals belong to village Chandpur Ki Dhani. The Collector and also the Commissioner affirmed the recommendation made by the Lower Revenue Authorities in favour of Balwant Singh – respondent No.5. In the appeal preferred by the unselected candidates before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), issue pressed on LPA No.56 of 2009 -2- behalf of the appellant Ram Avtar and respondent No.6 Anil Kumar was that even Balwant Singh was not suitable for appointment as Lambardar of village Gajjiwas as he was running a utensils shop along with his sons at Rewari. And as such the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) remanded the matter for re-adjudication at the hands of the Collector, Rewari vide an order dated 19-11-2007 (Annexure P-5) with the writ petition. The learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of Civil Writ Petition 18945 of 2007 (vide order dated 09-01-2009), wherein the appellate order passed by the Financial Commissioner was impugned, arrived at the conclusion that the entire factual position including the fact that Balwant Singh – respondent No.5 was running a utensils shop along with his sons at Rewari was in the knowledge and notice of the Revenue Authorities which passed the orders selecting Balwant Singh as a Lambardar of village Gajjiwas, and as such, the orders passed by the lower Revenue Authorities namely, Collector, Rewari and Sub Divisional Officers (Civil) could not be treated as perverse. And as such interference with the orders passed by the Lower Revenue Authorities at the hands of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) was uncalled for. The factual position noticed hereinabove is not subject matter of dispute at the hands of learned counsel for the appellant. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appellant Ram Avtar, as also, respondent No.6 – Anil Kumar who did not find favour with the Revenue Authorities (for being selected as Lambardar of village Gajjiwas) being residents of an LPA No.56 of 2009 -3- adjoining village. And that, the agriculture land of Ram Avtar herein was merely two acres away from the boundary of village Gajjiwas, and as such, should not have been overlooked. We have considered the aforesaid first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. We are, however, satisfied that no interference is called for in the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge while disposing of Civil Writ Petition No.18945 of 2007 vide order dated 9-1-2009. Our aforesaid determination is based on the fact that the appellant Ram Avtar as well as respondent No.6 are admittedly not residents of village Gajjiwas, whereas, Balwant Singh who has been selected by the Lower Revenue Authorities is admittedly a resident of the aforesaid village. The second submission advanced on behalf of the appellant was, that respondent No.5 could not also be considered suitable for the post of Lambardar as he was running a utensils shop at Rewari, and as such, will not be in a position to spare time for the assignment to which he had been selected. It is not possible for us to accept even the second submission advanced on behalf of the appellant. The fact that respondent No.5 Balwant Singh was running a utensils shop along with his sons at Rewari is inconsequential, as respondent No.5 Balwant Singh is not the sole individual running the shop under reference. His sons will be able to look after the business when he is required by the villages for the work of Lambardar. As such, the submission that respondent No.5 Balwant Singh would not be LPA No.56 of 2009 -4- available as and when required for discharging the duties for the post of Lambardar, is not acceptable. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (J.S. KHEHAR) JUDGE (UMA NATH SINGH) JUDGE April 28, 2009 manju