LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 1099 OF 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: August 30, 2011. Parties Name Jaspal Singh ...APPELLANT. VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I) Punjab and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri PRESENT: Mr. S.K.Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) JUDGMENT Dispute in this case pertains to appointment of a Lambardar in village Lakho Ke Behram. Before the Revenue authorities, the issue came to an end when revision petition filed by respondent No. 3, namely, Tehal Singh was decided in his favour by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals- I), Punjab, on December 4, 2008. When giving relief to respondent No. 3, the above officer observed as under: “I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. I find that the Collector has passed a detailed order giving every justification for accepting the candidature of the petitioner whose name had been recommended all along with line by the LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 1099 OF 2011 (O&M) -2- revenue officers. The plea of the Commissioner that the petitioner was under some illegal occupation over the Panchayat land, is not supported by record as no evidence was led before the revenue officer at the time of examination of the candidates. The so-called papers produced by the respondent before the Commissioner amount to fresh evidence, which cannot be entertained at the later stage. Under these circumstances, the order of the Commissioner is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside and the order of the Collector is maintained as well reasoned and self speaking order.” For the post in question, appellant and respondent No. 3 were the contesting candidates. After passing of the order by the Financial Commissioner, as mentioned above, the appellant remained satisfied and did not lay challenge to that order within a reasonable time. Thereafter he filed Civil Writ Petition No. 4288 of 2011, which was dismissed on March 10, 2011, by taking note of delay of more than two years in filing the writ petition. We feel that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified. Even before us, counsel for the appellant has failed to give any explanation in filing the writ petition at a belated stage. On merits also the respondent No. 3 is a better candidate. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Ritu Bahri) Judge August 30, 2011 DKC