IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 461 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: July 24, 2009 Surinder Singh …Appellant Versus Daljit Singh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present: Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against order dated 14.5.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 7267 of 2009 holding that the appellant- petitioner was not entitled to be appointed as Lambardar (Headman) of the village. The aforesaid fact had weighed heavily with the authorities including the Financial Commissioner who had passed LPA No. 461 of 2009 (O&M) order dated 4.11.2008 (P-6) upholding the orders of the subordinate authorities. The matter with regard to unauthorised possession of the panchayat land has attained finality upto this Court although the learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioner-appellant had remained un-successful upto Hon’ble the Supreme Court. However, the learned Single Judge in the concluding para of his order has observed that even if the matter with regard to the eviction of the petitioner-appellant was pending before Hon’ble the Supreme Court, it would not make any material difference. Mr. A.P. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record order dated 18.9.2006 (A-1) passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court entertaining the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 151014 of 2006, filed by Jeet Singh and others, directing that status quo be maintained. Mr. Bhandari has further submitted that no authority has gone into that aspect and, therefore, it cannot be considered that the basis of rejection of the claim made by the petitioner-appellant is that he is in un-authorised possession of the panchayat land. Having heard learned counsel we are of the view that pendency of the Special Leave Petition before Hon’ble the Supreme Court with regard to the controversy whether the petitioner-appellant is in un-authorised possession of the panchayat land, would not make any material difference because as long as his antecedents are doubtful it cannot be assumed that he is not in un-authorised possession of the panchayat land. We also do not find any substance 2 LPA No. 461 of 2009 (O&M) in the argument raised by the learned counsel that no finding has been recorded by the authorities with regard to the encroachment made by the petitioner-appellant. A perusal of para 4 of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner clearly shows that the aforesaid aspect was before him. The Financial Commissioner also weighed the relative merits of the candidates as is evident from para 5 of the order, which reads thus:- “5. I have carefully gone through the written arguments filed by both the counsel, the revision petition as well as the record of the lower courts. I agree with the contention of the counsel for the respondent that the choice of the Collector is not to be disturbed unless and until it suffers from any patent illegality. The respondent is younger in age because he is 40 years old and the appellant is 60 years old. The educational qualification of both the candidates is equal. The name of the respondent was recommended by Tehsildar and SDM also. The District Collector appointed him as Lambardar keeping in view the interse merit of three candidates who were left in the fray. He has been Sarpanch of the village also. Obviously the respondent is higher in merit. I see no infirmity or illegality in the orders of the Collector or Commissioner. Otherwise also the appellant Surinder Singh has availed the remedy of the appeal before the Commissioner and there is no provision for second 3 LPA No. 461 of 2009 (O&M) appeal. The matter was required to be challenged in this court only by filing revision under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act whereas the present appeal has been filed under section 13 of the Act ibid. I see no merit in the present appeal which is otherwise taken as revision petition and is dismissed being without any merit.” In view of the above, we do not find any ground to entertain the appeal, which accordingly is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (NIRMALJIT KAUR) July 24, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 4