Civil Writ Petition No. 1562 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1562 of 2010 Date of decision: 23rd February, 2011 Sher Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. C.M.Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Nara, Senior DAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1to 3. Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. None for respondent No. 5. Ajai Lamba, J.(Oral) 1. This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing order, Annexure P-3, dated 22.05.2008 passed by respondent No. 3-Collector, Bhiwani; Annexure P-4, dated 26.02.2009 passed by respondent No. 2- Commissioner Hisar Division, Hisar and order; Annexure P-5, dated 27.11.2009 passed by respondent No. 1-Financial Commissioner, Haryana. 2. The Collector, Bhiwani directed appointment of respondent No. 5, Bansi Lal as Lambardar of village Jamalpur,Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 Civil Writ Petition No. 1562 of 2010 2 Om Parkash filed two appeals before the Commissioner. The Commissioner accepted the appeal of Om Parkash while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner Sher Singh. Accordingly, respondent No. 4 Om Parkash had been directed to be appointed as Lambardar. 3. Against order Annexure P-4 dated 26.02.2009 passed by respondent No. 2-Commissioner Hissar Division, Hissar only one appeal was filed by the petitioner and, therefore, at this juncture Bansi Lal respondent No. 5 is not in the fray for appointment of Lambardar for the village. The Financial Commissioner dismissed the appeal while upholding the order passed by the Commissioner for appointment of respondent No. 4 Om Parkash as Lambardar of the village. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Commissioner remanded the matter back to the Collector for conducting an enquiry as to whether the petitioner was in illegal possession of Gram Panchayat land or not. Report has been received indicating that one Balwant Singh was in un-authorised possession of land. Balwant Singh had constructed a house on the said land which had been taken by Sanjay on rent. Sanjay admittedly, is the son of the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that for misdeed of a son, the petitioner can not be held responsible and liable. 5. Learned counsel for the private respondents contends that there is no demerit in the claim of the respondent and therefore, the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner do not call for any interference. Civil Writ Petition No. 1562 of 2010 3 6. I have considered the issue in the context of contention of learned counsel, and the record. While petitioner Sher Singh is presently aged 66 years, respondent No. 4 Om Parkash is aged 52 years. The petitioner is 10th class pass and J.B.T. also whereas respondent No. 4 is 9th class pass. Since a Harijan Lambardar is to be appointed, therefore, the land holding is not relevant. The petitioner does not own any land whereas, respondent No. 4 is having 18½ acres of land. 7. As per demarcation report dated 25.02.2007, the District Revenue Officer reported that the petitioner Sher Singh was in illegal possession of 3 marlas of panchayati land and had constructed a pucca house on the same. To the contrary, Lambardar, Bawani Khera reported that the house was constructed by Balwant Singh which was given on rent to Sanjay son of Sher Singh. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent that the finding recorded by the Tehsildar is based on the affidavit of Sher Singh and not on other physical verification. 8. Be that as it may, the reasons assigned by the Financial Commissioner to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner do not call for any interference. The issue has been dealt with by the Financial Commissioner in impugned order Annexure P-5 in the following manner:- “In both these reports, there is one common point namely that there is a pucca house illegally constructed on the said Panchayat land. Whereas one report states that the same has been constructed by Sh. Civil Writ Petition No. 1562 of 2010 4 Sher Singh, petitioner, in the other report the same has been mentioned to be on rent with the son of Sh. Sher Singh, petitioner. Even if the benefit of doubt is given to Sh. Sher Singh, petitioner and it is held that his son Sh. Sanjay is a tenant of the house illegally constructed on the said land, even the same reflects poorly on the standing of Sh. Sher Singh, petitioner. More so in view of the fact that as per the report of Tehsildar Bawani Khera, the said house is stated to have been constructed by Sh. Balwant Singh brother of Sh. Sher Singh, petitioner. Therefore, Sher Singh is not a fit candidate for the post of Lambardar. For the detailed reasons mentioned above, the order passed by Commissioner Hisar Division, Hisar is found to be legal and based on the relative merits of the case. Therefore, the same is upheld and the appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed. Order had been reserved int his case after conclusion of arguments. The same is being pronounced today. May be conveyed to the parties.” 9. There is a cloud on the integrity and proper conduct of the petitioner in regard to the unauthorised possession of the land held by the petitioner or his son. No such disability can be traced in the conduct of respondent No. 4 Om Parkash. In such circumstances, impugned orders do not call for judicial review in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 10. This petition is dismissed. [AJAI LAMBA] JUDGE 23rd February, 2011 Shivani Kaushik 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?