IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 18212 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.10.2008 Ajmer Singh ....Petitioner. vs. Financial Commissioner and another. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. --- Present: Mr.J.S.Bhandol, Advocate, for the petitioner. -- J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral) The controversy raised in the instant writ petition pertains to appointment to the post of Lambardar in village Bir Bhamarsi, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib. At no stage whatsoever the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment as such. All the revenue authorities found favour with Hardeep Singh. So as to assail the appointment of Hardeep Singh (respondent No.2) against the post of Lambardar the petitioner availed of all the statutory remedies which eventually culminated into the order passed by the Financial Commissioner Appeals-I,Punjab, dated 17.7.2008. A perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that whilst the petitioner is totally illiterate, respondent No.2 is a matriculate. The impugned order also shows that respondent No.2 owns 55 kanal of land and is 36 years old and further that the majority of the people have supported his candidature for appointment to the post of Lambardar. The facts noticed in the impugned order dated 17.7.2008 (Annexure P1) have not been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however, vehemently contended that there is no question of considering respondent No.2 (Hardeep Singh) for appointment against CWP No.18212 of 2008 (2) the post of Lambardar on account of the fact that he suffers a disability namely, that respondent No.2 is in unauthorised possession of shamilat land. This assertion is sought to be assailed on the basis of the copy of jamabandi for the year 2000-01 placed on the record of this case as Annexure P4 and on the basis of an application filed before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Fatehgarh Sahib by Hardev Singh for correcting the khasra girdawri so as to incorporate Hardev Singh's name in place of respondent No.2 (Hardeep Sihgh). Undoubtedly, if the petitioner could have shown to us through cogent and authentic material that respondent No.2 is in unauthorised possession of shamilat land that would have been a matter of serious infirmity in the process of selection. The documents placed on the record of this case namely, Annexures P4 and P7 cannot lead to the inference that respondent No.2 is in unauthorised occupation of shamilat land. The instant issue was considered by the revenue authorities. A specific finding was recorded in the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fatehgarh Sahib dated 4.8.2006 (Annexure P6) that respondent No.2 is not in unauthorised occupation of shamilat land. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( J.S.Khehar) Judge (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge October 21, 2008 rk