IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.9753 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 30, 2011 BALWINDER SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This Civil Writ Petition has been filed in challenge to order dated 10.3.2011 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab and order dated 12.4.2007 (Annexure P-1), passed by Collector, Ferozepur. 2 Vide order (Annexure P-1), respondent No.5-Balwinder Singh son of Bakhshish Singh was appointed as Lambardar for Village Basti Khushal Singh Wali, Dakhli Manochahal, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur. The petitioner carried an appeal, which has been allowed by the Commissioner vide order dated 21.8.2007 (Annexure P-2). Respondent No.5 filed a petition before the Financial Commissioner. Vide order dated 29.5.2008 (Annexure P-3), the Financial Commissioner accepted the petition and upheld the choice of the Collector. It seems that the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No.9753 of 2011 2 filed CWP 13152 of 2008 (Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and others). The petition was disposed of vide order dated 8.12.2010, in the following terms:- “The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 29.5.2008 and 12.4.2007, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab and the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur. Counsel for the parties have arrived at a consensus that as merits of parties referred to by the Collector while appointing respondent no.5 as the Lambardar are more or less similar, the matter would require reconsideration by the Financial Commissioner, so as to determine whether the discretion exercised by the Collector is legal and valid. In view of the statements made by counsel for the parties, the writ petition is partly allowed, the order dated 29.5.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab, to decide the appeal filed by respondent no.5, afresh and in accordance with law. Parties would be at liberty to refer to any other relevant factors that may have been produced before the Collector but have not been considered by the Collector, while selecting respondent no.5. Parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab, on 27.1.2011, who shall decide the revision afresh, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. During pendency of proceedings before the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab, respondent no.5 shall continue to discharge the duties of the Lambardar.” Civil Writ Petition No.9753 of 2011 3 3 The Financial Commissioner has again upheld the choice of the Collector, vide order (Annexure P-4). 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.5 does not deserve to be appointed Lambardar for the reason that respondent No.5 gave wrong information in regard to land holding. 5 The issue has been dealt with by the Financial Commissioner, in the following terms: “4. Having considered the rival contentions carefully, I find that the qualifications of both the candidates are almost similar. While Balwinder Singh son of Gurmej Singh has larger land holding, the other candidate is younger and has a better record of service to the society. Even in the remand order of the High Court, it has been noted that both parties are agreed that the merits of the respective candidate are more or less similar. In this background I find that there are no sufficient reasons to disregard the choice made by the Collector. The Commissioner upset this only on the ground that the conduct of Balwinder Singh son of Bakhshish Singh had not been trustworthy since he had made different statements at different times about the extent of his land holding. However, as is discernible from the Commissioner's order itself there is not much variation in these claims – this vary only between 2-1/2 acres and 3 acres. This point was also noted by the Collector who rightly held that the extent of land holding as reflected in the naqsha lambardari has to be considered. This is 15 kanals 2 marlas i.e. about 2-1/2 acres. To my mind this circumstance alone does not reflect any malafide or misconduct on part of the appellant. .....” Civil Writ Petition No.9753 of 2011 4 6 Respondent No.5 has been appointed Lambardar after taking into consideration comparative merit of the candidates. Choice of the Collector has been upheld by the Financial Commissioner in the impugned order (Annexure P-4), as the Collector is required to take work from the Lambardar. No such demerit, such as, pendency of a criminal case or unauthorized occupation of panchayat land has been pointed out in the case of respondent No.5. In regard to land holding, minor exaggeration on the part of respondent No.5 cannot be a sufficient circumstance to interfere in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction and judicially review the impugned order. 7 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. May 30, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?