Civil Writ Petition No. 582 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 582 of 2009 Date of Order: 27.07.2010 Gulab Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. S,N,Gaur,Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 to 3 Mr. R.S.Longia, Advocate for respondent No.5 RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 24.04.2007, 19.12.2007 and 24.09.2008, passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Kurukshetra, the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana, Chandigarh. As the post of Lambardar of Village Barot, Sub-tehsil Ladwa, Tehsil Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra, fell vacant, applications were invited from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Lambardar. After due consideration of the applications received, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the Collector appointed Dharam Pal, respondent no.4 as the Lambardar. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner and one Ram Singh, Civil Writ Petition No. 582 of 2009 -2- respondent no.5 filed separate appeals. Vide order dated 19.12.2007, the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, dismissed both the appeals and affirmed the appointment of respondent no.4. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, which was dismissed on 24.09.2008. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Lambardari pertains to “Patti Sikh” and as respondent no.4 is not a share holder or a member of this patti, his appointment as Lambardar, should be set aside. It is further argued that ownership of land being an essential qualification, respondent no.4, is ineligible as he does not own any land. Counsel for respondent no.4, on the other hand, submits by reference to the jamabandi for the year 2001-2002, Annexure R-3, that Dharam Pal, respondent no.4 is recorded as a co-sharer in “Patti Sikh” and, therefore, the argument raised by counsel for the petitioner, is factually incorrect. Counsel for respondent no.5, submits that his revision has been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner but he has not preferred any writ petition. It is further submitted that mere pendency of a criminal case is irrelevant, as a presumption of innocence attaches to an accused till he is convicted. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to hold that the appointment of respondent no.4, as the Lambardar is in any manner illegal, arbitrary or perverse as to warrant interference, by this Court. The Collector, appraised the respective merits and thereafter directed the appointment of respondent no.4 as the Lambardar. The only argument against his Civil Writ Petition No. 582 of 2009 -3- appointment is that he does not hold any land in “Patti Sikh”. The argument is factually incorrect as the jamabandi for the year 2001- 2002, clearly records that Dharam Pal, respondent no.4 is a co- sharer in “Patti Sikh”. The argument raised by counsel for respondent no.5 that mere pendency of a criminal case, is not a disqualification, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that other candidates have an unblemished record. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. July 27, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE