IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1670 of 2010 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 10.02.2011 Ram Kishan .... APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) Unfortunately, two real brothers are fighting for appointment of Lambardar of village Jharoth, Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonepat. The post of Lambardar fell vacant after the death of their father. The appellant is the elder brother and respondent No.4, who has been appointed as Lambardar of the village, is the younger one. Though the Collector, Sonepat, vide order dated 28.5.2008 (Annexure P-1) appointed the appellant as a Lambardar, but vide order dated 20.2.2009 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, the said order was set aside and and vide order 16.7.2009 (Annexure P-3), the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, upheld the said order of the Commissioner. LPA No. 1670 of 2010 -2- It is a fact that the appellant was prosecuted in two criminal cases, though was subsequently acquitted in both the cases. On the other hand, respondent No.4, who is residing in the village and younger in age, has clean record. The higher revenue authorities, while setting aside the choice of the Collector and appointing respondent No.4 as a Lambardar, have taken into consideration various factors. The appellant, who was serving in police department, was normally not available in the village, whereas respondent No.4, who is residing in the village, always remained available. It has also been taken into consideration that the village Gram Panchayat and all the other Lambardars of the village supported the candidature of respondent No.4, because he was enjoying very good reputation in the village. It has been further observed that respondent No.4, who is younger in age, gave sufficient time in the village activities and contributed towards Government programmes and schemes, like Family Planning and Small Savings. Keeping in view all the aforesaid factors and the previous antecedents, the choice of the Collector regarding appointment of Lambardar of village Jharoth, was set aside by the higher revenue authorities. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that after noticing all the facts, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, filed by the appellant, for setting aside the orders of the higher revenue authorities, appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village. We do not find any illegality in the order, passed LPA No. 1670 of 2010 -3- by the learned Single Judge. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 10, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE