IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.18881 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 25, 2011 MADAN LAL ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Petitioner-Madan Lal was appointed as Lambardar for Mauja Rohtak, vide order dated 30.7.2007 (Annexure P-1). Vide order dated 23.4.2008 (Annexure P-2), appeal of respondent No.4-Mahender Singh has been accepted. The petitioner preferred a revision petition, which has been decided vide order dated 16.8.2010 (Annexure P-3). In para-3 of the order (Annexure P-3), it has been stated that there is some confusion about the factual position viz. residence and ownership of land/house of the petitioner (Madan Lal) as well as respondent (Mahender Singh), which needs to be ascertained to take a Civil Writ Petition No.18881 of 2010 2 decision in the matter. In such circumstances, the case has been remanded to the Collector for verifying the facts and taking a fresh decision in the matter. Accordingly, orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2) have been set aside by the revisional authority. 2 I have considered the pleadings. 3 It is made evident from the record that Mahabir Parshad, Lambardar, died. After completing the lengthy procedure, decision was taken by the Collector vide order (Annexure P-1), appointing the petitioner as Lambardar. The revision was decided on 16.8.2010 vide order (Annexure P-3). 4 If the case is remanded at this stage, there is a possibility of the aggrieved party filing appeal, and revision again, which shall cause substantial delay and multiplicity of litigation. In such circumstances, the Financial Commissioner is always at liberty to call for a report from the Collector on specific issue(s). Such circumstances appear to exist in the present case. It would be in the interest of justice not to delay the matter, and certainly to avoid further litigation by way of second round of appeal and revision. 5 In view of the above, order (Annexure P-3) is quashed. The parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on 5.4.2011. The Financial Commissioner would be required to pass specific order calling for report on particular issues from the Collector within a specified time. On receipt of the report, the Financial Commissioner, as revisional authority, can take a decision on the issue and pass appropriate orders, as Civil Writ Petition No.18881 of 2010 3 warranted by facts and law. 6 The petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. March 25, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?