CWP No.18406 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.18406 of 2009 Date of decision : 31.3.2011 Rajinder Kumar ........Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present:- Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.S.S.Nara, Senior DAG, Haryana Mr.Manoj Tanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.5 --- AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) : Vide order dated 31.7.2007 Annexure P-1 Rajinder Kumar son of Ramji Lal, the petitioner, was appointed Lambardar for village Dulot Ahir, Tehsil and District Mohindergarh. The order came to be challenged before Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon. Vide order dated 27.3.2009 Annexure P-2, the Appellate Authority remanded the matter back to the Collector on the ground that there is no evidence on the file to the effect that the petitioner has land in the patti of the deceased Lambardar. It has also been noted that there is a criminal case under Excise Act, against one of the candidates namely Azad Singh. Order dated 27.3.2009 Annexure P-2 has been upheld by Revisional Authority vide order dated 27.8.2009 Annexure P-3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in challenge to order dated 27.3.2009 Annexure P-2 and order dated 27.8.2009 Annexure P-3, contends that the petitioner has land in the patti. Lambardar is to be appointed for the village and therefore, there is no circumstance that calls for remand of the case to the prescribed authority viz.Collector. Learned counsel CWP No.18406 of 2009 -2- further contends that the private respondents are not even eligible for consideration, in so much as Azad Singh has been convicted under the Excise Act whereas Ashwani Kumar-respondent No.5 is a defaulter of the bank. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties. The order of remand Annexure P-2 as upheld vide Annexure P-3, has been passed on the premise that there is no material available on the record to show that the petitioner has land in the patti. It is the common case of the parties that there is another Lambardar in the village namely Pratap Singh. It, thus, appears that there are more than one Lambardars in the village. The file does not make it evident as to whether Lambardar for a patti is required to be appointed after the death of Narender Singh, Lambardar on 29.1.1996. Be that as it may, since the impugned orders have been passed for valid reasons, in judicial review, they do not call for interferance in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The parties shall appear before Collector, Mohindergarh on 18.4.2011. The District Collector will, at first instance, consider whether Lambardar is to be appointed for a patti or a specific area and thereafter, address the issue in context of merits and de-merits of the candidates in context of the area for which Lambardar is to be appointed. In case none of the persons is found to be appropriate/suitable for appointment as Lambardar, the Collector would be at liberty to issue publication again to invite applications afresh. (AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE 31.3.2011 akm