LPA No. 257 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 257 of 2009 Date of decision 20 .4.2009 Mohinder Singh ...Appellant Versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals) and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Ms. Ranjana Shahi ,Advocate and Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgement dated 24.3.2009 delivered by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 12014 of 2007. The learned Single Judge firstly recorded the finding that Shonka Singh, petitioner- respondent no.4 did not encroach on the Panchayat land and the aforesaid fact has also not been disputed before us. The aforesaid finding is based on the report submitted by the Tehsildar that no encroachment was found on the land of Shonka Singh after Shonka Singh had filed an appropriate application on 22.7.2005. The learned Single Judge also found that on the basis of the incorrect fact the claim of Shonka Singh, petitioner- respondent no. 4, was negatived by the Collector. Having heard learned counsel, we find that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error of law by setting aside the order passed by LPA No. 257 of 2009 2 the Collector and the subsequent order of the Appellate Authority. The learned Single Judge had rightly sent back the matter for consideration of the Collector with the observation that he will reconsider the claim of Shonka Singh, petitioner- respondent no.4 and any other. It is pertinent to mention that when Lambardar was appointed for the first time then various factors as per Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules is required to be taken into account and the factum of encroachment must have prejudiced the mind of the Collector while considering the case of the petitioner- respondent no.4. The appellant can stake his claim before the Collector once again. There is no substantive question of law or error of jurisdiction in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we are not inclined to interference in the aforesaid order. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Augustine George Masih) 20.4.2009 Judge okg