L.P.A. No.684 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.684 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 07, 2011 Satwinder Pal Singh .....APPELLANT Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. H.S. Saini, Advocate, for the caveator/respondent No.5. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 1.2.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.2193 of 2010) filed by appellant challenging the orders dated 19.3.2001 and 20.10.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner, Revenue, respectively, has been dismissed. This case pertains to the appointment on the post of Lambardar of village Borha, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. The said post fell vacant on the death of previous Lambardar in the year 1996. After inviting applications in accordance with law, the Collector, Ludhiana appointed the appellant as Lambardar of the village vide order dated 12.5.1998. Respondent No.5-Harjinder Pal Singh challenged the said order by claiming L.P.A. No.684 of 2011 (O&M) -2- that in spite of the fact that he was more meritorious and suitable, his candidature was wrongly rejected by the Collector and the appellant, who even was not resident of the village, was appointed as Lambardar. The Commissioner vide its order dated 19.3.2001 set aside the appointment of the appellant while coming to the conclusion that the appellant had not only left the village two years back and settled at village Sahnewal, but he had also been involved in a theft case of cutting trees of the forest department. The said order was challenged by the appellant before the Financial Commissioner, who vide his order dated 8.8.2005 accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner. Respondent No.5 challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner by filing CWP No.8774 of 2006 which was disposed of vide order dated 13.2.2008, and the order of the Financial Commissioner was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Financial Commissioner for fresh decision by giving reasons for setting aside the order of the Commissioner. After the remand, the Financial Commissioner had obtained the report from Patwari Halqa about the residence of the appellant in village Borha, who had reported that the appellant was not permanently residing in village Borha and was in fact residing in village Sahnewal. Even thereafter, Naib Tehsildar, Kumkalan furnished the report stating that the appellant was not permanently residing in village Borha. It was reported that the appellant even did not have his vote in village Borha, rather his vote was in village Sahnewal. However, subsequently he got himself registered as a voter in village Borha. After taking into consideration all these factors and the L.P.A. No.684 of 2011 (O&M) -3- comparative merit of both the candidates, the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 20.10.2009 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and affirmed the order of the Commissioner. The appellant challenged the orders passed by the revenue authorities by filing CWP No.2193 of 2010, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 01.02.2011. The appellant has challenged the said order as well as the aforesaid orders passed by the Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner in this Letters Patent Appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and caveator/respondent No.5 and gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the orders passed by the revenue authorities. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to convince the Court that the finding recorded by the revenue authorities that the appellant was not permanently residing in village Borha and is residing in village Sahnewal, is incorrect, but after going through the impugned order and considering the contention of the appellant, we do not find any ground to interfere in the said finding of fact. The report of the revenue officials regarding the residence of the appellant has not been questioned. However, the learned counsel wants to rely upon certain electricity bills pertaining to the period 2009 and voters list pertaining to the year 2007 and voter identity card of the daughter of the appellant pertaining to the year 1998. We are of the opinion that on the basis of these documents, which were subsequently obtained, the report sought from the revenue officials by the L.P.A. No.684 of 2011 (O&M) -4- Financial Commissioner, could not be discarded, and the finding of fact recorded by the revenue authorities cannot be interfered. We are satisfied that the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, after taking into consideration the comparative merit of both the candidates, had appointed respondent No.5 as Lambardar of the village. It is not the case of the appellant that respondent No.5 is disqualified to hold the post. On the other hand, it has been found that the appellant is not the permanent resident of the village. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE April 07, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE