IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 284 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 16.02.2011 Amir Singh .... APPELLANT Versus The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Amir Singh, an unsuccessful candidate for the post of Lambardar of village Riar, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 2.11.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 15368 of 2008), filed by Gurmukh Singh (respondent No.4 herein) has been allowed, and the orders dated 19.11.2003; 14.12.2004 and 12.3.2008, Annexures P-6; P-7 and P-11, passed by the Collector, Amritsar; the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar; and the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh, respectively, appointing the appellant as a Lambardar, have been set aside. LPA No. 284 of 2011 -2- We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned order as well as the various orders, passed by the revenue authorities, which have been annexed with this appeal. In the present case, on the demise of the Lambardar of village Riar, proceedings for appointment of a new Lambardar were initiated by the Collector. The appellant and respondent No.4 put their claim for the said post. Initially, the Collector, vide order dated 6.4.1999 (Annexure P-1), appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village. The candidature of the appellant was rejected on the ground that he was held guilty by the Divisional Canal Officer for theft of canal water. The said order was set aside by the Commissioner by holding that unauthorised irrigation of water was a petty case. However, on appeal, filed by respondent No.4, vide order dated 15.5.2002 (Annexure P-5), the Financial Commissioner, though approved the appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village, but remitted the matter to the Collector to ascertain as to whether respondent No.4 was owning some property or was having other interests in village Sagna (a different village), which would render him ineffective as Lambardar of village Riar. After remand, the Collector, without going into the issue on which the matter was remanded, considered the matter afresh, and vide order dated 19.11.2003 (Annexure P-6) appointed the appellant as Lambardar. The said order of the Collector was affirmed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, vide orders dated 14.12.2004 (Annexure P-7) and 12.3.2008 (Annexure P-11), respectively. LPA No. 284 of 2011 -3- Against those orders, the writ petition filed by respondent No.4 was allowed and all the aforesaid three orders were set aside by the learned Single Judge, while making the following observations : “A perusal of the above extract reveals that the Collector has recorded a finding that the petitioner does not own any land in village Sagna and is a bonafide resident of village Riar. The matter, in all fairness, stood concluded with this finding in view of the limited nature of the order of remand passed by the Financial Commissioner but the Collector proceeded to reject the candidature of the petitioner, in abject disregard to his finding and the order of remand. Even otherwise, the mere fact that the petitioner may have at one time been a resident of village Sagna or that his name continued to appear in the voter list of village Sagna upto 2001 was neither germane nor relevant to the limited enquiry ordered by the Financial Commissioner. The finding that the petitioner has been living in village Riar after his marriage, which took place before the death of the previous Lambardar (who is the petitioner's father- in-law), and before initiation of the process for appointment of the post of Lambardar clearly raises an irrefutable presumption that the petitioner had come to reside in village Riar before initiation of the process for appointment of the Lambardar. In addition, the material on record, namely, the report submitted by the Tehsildar, during the initial process for appointment, the fact that the petitioner owns one acre of land in village Riar, the fact that his name appears as a voter of village Riar, the issuance of a ration card and identity card of village Riar, and the fact that the petitioner does not own any land in village Sagna rebuts any adverse inference that may arise from the LPA No. 284 of 2011 -4- entry in the voter list of village Sagna of the year 1999. The Collector was, therefore, not justified whether in fact or in law in rejecting the petitioner's candidature, by misconstruing the order of remand passed by the Financial Commissioner. In view of the finding recorded by the Collector that the petitioner does not own any land in village Riar, it would necessarily follow that the petitioner shall not be impeded in the discharge of his duties as the Lambardar of village Riar. Both the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner dealt with the matter in a perfunctory manner, as they failed to peruse the documents on record, the order of remand passed by the Financial Commissioner and dismissed the appeal and the revision arbitrarily.” During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute the fact that on earlier occasion, the Financial Commissioner, though approved the appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar of village Riar, but remitted the matter to the Collector on limited aspect, i.e. to ascertain as to whether respondent No.4 was owning some property or was having other interests in village Sagna, which would render him ineffective as Lambardar of village Riar. Instead of considering this limited issue, after remand the Collector has misconstrued the remand order of the Financial Commissioner and decided the matter afresh, which was totally beyond the scope of the remand order. The learned Single Judge, after noticing all these facts and the remand order as well as the order passed by the Collector, has come to the conclusion, as quoted above. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that after the remand, the LPA No. 284 of 2011 -5- Collector has travelled beyond the scope of the remand order. The said order was not considered and appreciated in right direction and once it was found that respondent No.4 has settled in village Riar before initiation of the proceedings for appointment of Lambardar, he cannot be denied the right of appointment, merely because in the voter list of village Sagna of the year 1999, his name finds mention. Thus, in our opinion, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order, passed by the learned Single Judge. No merit. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE February 16, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE