LP.A. No.1522 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LP.A. No.1522 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:- November 28, 2011 Balkar Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. ... Satish Kumar Mittal, J. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.20483 of 2008) filed by the appellant challenging the orders dated 16.11.2005, 6.2.2007 and 3.7.2008 passed by the Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner, respectively, has been dismissed. Though this appeal is barred by limitation, and along with the appeal, the appellant has filed an application (CM No.4169 of 2011) for condonation of 48 days of delay in filing the appeal, however, without taking the said delay into consideration, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits and gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. LP.A. No.1522 of 2011 (O&M) -2- In this case, vide order dated 16.11.2005 passed by the Collector, Patiala, respondent No.2 was appointed as Lambardar of the village after finding him more suitable than the other two candidates. The said order of the Collector was affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner and in revision by the Financial Commissioner. Before the learned Single Judge, an argument was raised that respondent No.2 was in occupation of the Panchayat land, therefore, he was not eligible for appointment on the post of Lambardar. The said contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the demarcation report (Annexure P-2), on the basis of which the appellant is alleging that respondent No.2 was in unauthorised occupation, was procured by the appellant during pendency of the proceedings, i.e., much after the process for appointment of Lambardar was initiated. The said demarcation report was also not produced by the appellant at the time of hearing of the appeal before the Commissioner. While taking into consideration these facts, it was found that the said demarcation report is a suspicious document, therefore, on the basis of such document it cannot be said that respondent No.2 was in unauthorised occupation of the Gram Panchayat land. Again before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant raised the same argument. It is not disputed that the Collector, after taking into consideration the comparative merits of all the candidates, found respondent No.2 as best candidate and appointed him as Lambardar of the village. At that time no such material that respondent No.2 was in unauthorised occupation, was placed before the Collector. Merely on the basis of the demarcation report, which was subsequently conducted in LP.A. No.1522 of 2011 (O&M) -3- absence of respondent No.2, it cannot be concluded safely that the said person was in unauthorised occupation. If an order of eviction is passed against a person either under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 or under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, the said person can be said to be in illegal possession of the Panchayat land or public property. In this case, there is no such order of either of the authorities. The appellant is only relying upon the demarcation report, which was procured subsequently, and which has not been produced before the Collector. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly not believed the said demarcation report. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE November 28, 2011 (PARAMJEET SINGH) vkg JUDGE