Civil Writ Petition No.9259 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9259 of 2011 Date of Decision:23.11.2011 Ram Pal ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Ms.Shikha Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.D.Khanna, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Ashok Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record is that, in the wake of death of Sh.Manga Ram, the post of Lambardar(Scheduled Caste Category) had fallen vacant, in Village Nissing, Tehsil and District Karnal. After following the due procedure, as envisaged under the provisions of The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and the Rules framed thereunder(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and the Relevant Rules”), to begin with, the Collector appointed one Shamsher Singh son of Budh Ram, on the indicated post of Lambardar, vide order dated 22.11.2004(Annexure P-1). 2. Dissatisfied with the order(Annexure P-1), Ram Pal son of Datu Ram (petitioner) and Rajinder Kumar son of Dulla Ram (respondent No.4) filed their respective appeals, which were accepted and the matter was remanded back to the Collector, for fresh decision by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, through the medium of order dated 18.11.2005(Annexure P-2). 3. After remand of the case, the Collector considered the respective Civil Writ Petition No.9259 of 2011 2 merits and demerits of the candidates and appointed Ram Pal-petitioner as Lambardar of the Village, by way of order dated 04.05.2006(Annexure P-3). 4. Aggrieved by the order(Annexure P-3), respondent No.4 and Shamsher Singh son of Budh Ram filed their separate appeals, which were dismissed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, by virtue of order dated 08.03.2007(Annexure P-4). 5. At the same time, revision petition filed by respondent No.4 against the orders(Annexures P-3 and P-4) was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, by means of order dated 18.08.2009(Annexure P-5). 6. Again, aggrieved by the orders(Annexures P-3 to P-5), respondent No.4 filed Civil Writ Petition No.4764 of 2010, which was partly accepted by this Court and the case was remitted to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, to reconsider the matter afresh, vide order dated 16.11.2010(Annexure P-6). 7. Instead of deciding the revision petition afresh, as directed by this Court, the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, further remanded the matter to the Collector, by way of impugned order dated 09.05.2011(Annexure P-7). 8. Petitioner-Ram Pal did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-7) invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, as, the impugned order(Annexure P-7)cannot legally be sustained, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 10. As is evident from the record that, respondent No.4 challenged the earlier orders(Annexures P-3 to P-5) in Civil Writ Petition No.4764 of 2010, which came to be decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Rajive Bhalla, J.) Civil Writ Petition No.9259 of 2011 3 vide order dated 16.11.2010(Annexure P-6), which in substance is as under:- “A candidate, convicted of a criminal offence is undoubtedly ineligible but if acquitted absolved of any wrongdoing. The acquittal of the petitioner was ignored by the Collector on the ground that the petitioner has a criminal background but without referring to any facts to support this conclusion. This apart, the Financial Commissioner committed an error in holding that the petitioner was acquitted on the basis of a compromise. A perusal of the judgment, recording the petitioner's acquittal reveals that the petitioner was acquitted as prosecution witness did not support the prosecution version. An acquittal on the basis of a compromise and an acquittal for failure of prosecution witnesses to support the prosecution version, do not entitle a revenue officer to cast a doubt upon the acquittal of an accused. The Financial Commissioner also non-suited the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner's father and grand-father are in unauthorized possession of Panchayat property. The unauthorized possession of relatives, howsoever close, cannot visit a candidate with adverse consequences unless it is established that he has drawn benefit of their unauthorized possession. A submission made by counsel for respondent No.4 that a demarcation report Annexure R-4/1 establishes that petitioner is also in unauthorized occupation of Panchayat property cannot be accepted. As this report has neither been referred to nor produced before the revenue officers. In this view of the matter, the petition is partly allowed, the impugned order dated 18.08.2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner to reconsider the revision afresh, in accordance with law, within three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Financial Commissioner would be at liberty to assess the merits of the parties and pass an order appointing the best candidate as a Lambardar.” 11. Strange enough, instead of deciding the matter afresh, as directed by this Court, the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, further remitted the case to the Collector, for its decision, by virtue of impugned order(Annexure P-7). 12. Such thus, being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this petition, is as to whether the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, can remand the case, in violation Civil Writ Petition No.9259 of 2011 4 of the order(Annexure P-6) of this Court or not? 13. Having regard to the rival contention of the learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative. 14. As indicated earlier, once this Court has specifically directed the Financial Commissioner, to assess the merits of the parties and to reconsider the matter afresh, in that eventuality, he(Financial Commissioner) did not have the jurisdiction, to further remand the case to the Collector in this relevant behalf. It amounts to violating the order(Annexure P-6) passed by this Court. Therefore, to my mind, the impugned order(Annexure P-7) cannot legally be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 15. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of subsequent hearing of the matter by the Financial Commissioner, the instant writ petition is accepted. The impugned order(Annexure P-7) is hereby set aside. The matter is again remitted to the Financial Commissioner, to decide the indicated revision petition himself. In any case, if he(Financial Commissioner) requires some additional material/assistance, then he would be at liberty, to seek the report of the Collector in regard to the respective pros & cons(merits & demerits) of the candidates. Thereafter, the Financial Commissioner will decide the matter afresh, in pursuance of the order(Annexure P-6) passed by this Court and then to pass a speaking order, in accordance with law. 16. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the concerned Financial Commissioner on 31.01.2012 for further proceedings in the matter. 17. Needless to mention here that, nothing recorded hereinabove would reflect, in any manner, on the merits of the case, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the instant writ petition. November 23, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Writ Petition No.9259 of 2011 5