IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1157 of 2011 Date of decision: 15.07.2011 Umed Singh …..Applicants versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Appellant has filed this appeal against an order dated 17.3.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing CWP No.10141 of 2009, filed by him. In that writ petition, the appellant had laid challenge to the orders dated 20.3.2007, 26.4.2007, 10.4.2009, passed by the Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner respectively, declining his prayer to appoint him as a Lambardar of village Jahri, tehsil and district Sonepat. As per facts on record, Akhi Ram, a Lambardar of the village died on 29.1.1973. Appellant is his son. After death of Akhi Ram, to fill up the post, applications were invited. Appellant’s son namely, Surender applied for the same along with other contesting candidates. LPA No.1157 of 2011 After getting report from the lower revenue staff, the matter was decided by the Collector, taking note of comparative merits of the candidates before him, he appointed respondent No.6 as Lambardar of the village. It is necessary to mention here that as per order passed by the Collector, the appellant was also one of the contending applicants, however, at the time of consideration, he failed to appear before the competent authority and accordingly proceeded ex-parte. This fact has been disputed by counsel for the appellant. Record reveals that the order passed by the Collector was challenged, in an appeal by Surender son of the appellant and when that appeal was pending, the appellant moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be a party therein, by stating that he was appointed as Lambardar on 16.8.1973 by SDO Sonepat and is working as such since then. Appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 26.4.2007. Admittedly, appellant did not lay challenge to the order passed by the Commissioner before the Financial Commissioner, instead his son filed a revision petition, laying challenge to the appointment of respondent No.6 as a Lambardar. The revision petition was also dismissed on 10.4.2009. When son of the appellant failed before the revenue authorities, the appellant filed a writ petition to lay challenge to the appointment of respondent No.6. Taking note of averment made by him, as stated above, the learned Single Judge passed the following order on 2.2.2011:- “Reply to para -3 of the writ petition (on merits) on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 through Shri Rajinder Singh, Tehsildar, Sonepat, clearly indicates that a false picture has been painted by the official respondents. The facts certainly have not been made clear, as per record. District Collector is the appointing authority for Lambardar. As per affidavit dated 2 LPA No.1157 of 2011 30.9.2010, filed by Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, as per record maintained, the petitioner was appointed as Lambardar of the village. This court would like to be informed as to whether the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 was approved by Collector, Sonepat or not, before its filing. The issue assumes importance because substantial time of the court has been wasted because of misleading statement given on behalf of the State or insufficient or inadequate facts being brought out. This court would also like to know whether any inquiry has been conducted or not in regard to appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar on 16.8.1973. In case, the name of the petitioner was incorporated in the register of Lambardar by way of fraud or mischief, surely, the facts having come to the notice of the authorities, some kind of action should have been taken. Adjourned to 17.3.2011.” In response to that order, an affidavit was filed by Mr.Pankaj Aggarwal, IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat on 13.3.2011, wherein it was stated that there exists one entry in the register that the appellant was appointed as Lambardar on 16.8.1973 beyond that no other record is available. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that regarding appointment of the appellant as Lambardar, no entry exists in the record room maintained by the office of the Deputy Commissioner. It is further stated that no file regarding appointment of appellant as Lambardar is available in the office. It was also averred that as per rules, the SDO(Civil) was not competent to appoint any person as Lambardar. Taking note of contents of the affidavit, learned Single Judge came to a conclusion that the plea raised by the appellant is false. We are satisfied with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge and do not wish to interfere in the same. The very fact that 3 LPA No.1157 of 2011 when applications were invited to appoint a Lambardar in the village, appellant did not object to the same, rather allowed his son to apply for the post of Lambardar. His son failed to get that appointment. He filed an appeal. At that stage, the appellant filed an application to be a party in that appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 26.4.2007. Appellant remained satisfied with the same, did not challenge that order before the competent authority in revision. Only his son went in revision, which was also dismissed. Above said facts clearly indicate that the plea raised by the appellant is false. Documents maintained in the office of the Deputy Commissioner also indicate in that regard. If the appellant was appointed legally and validly in the year 1973, it was his incumbent duty to object to the process adopted by the authorities to appoint a Lambardar by making proclamation in the village, at the initial stage. He failed to do so, which clearly shows that he was not appointed as Lambardar, however, an entry was got made in the register in connivance with some officials in the office of the SDO concerned. It is also correct that SDO(Civil) was not competent to appoint a Lambardar in the village. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 15.07.2011 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 4