IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 2333 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 22.12.2011 Gurdeep Singh .... APPELLANT Versus The Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Satbir Gill, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 21.1.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 8938 of 2009) filed by Naresh Kumar (respondent No.2 herein) for setting aside the order dated 22.4.2009 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1 herein) remanding the case regarding appointment of Lambardar with a direction to the Collector to consider the matter afresh, has been allowed. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned order as well as the orders, passed by the authorities below. LPA No. 2333 of 2011 -2- In this case, the Collector, Sirsa, vide order dated 18.5.2004 had appointed respondent No.2 as Lambardar of village Talwara Khurd, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa. The unsuccessful candidate Gurdeep Singh (appellant herein) challenged the said order in appeal. The Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, vide order dated 12.9.2006 remanded the case to the Collector to hold enquiry as to whether respondent No.2, who had been appointed as Lambardar of the village, is residing in Ellenabad or in village Talwara Khurd, as alleged by the appellant. After the remand, the Collector obtained report from Tehsildar, Ellenabad, who after conducting enquiry reported that respondent No.2 was residing in village Talwara Khurd, where he also owns a house. It was also reported that his name was entered as a voter in the voter list of Ward No.14, Ellenabad, for the year 2000, but in the voters list for the year 2004-05, his name was deleted. It was further reported that at present, respondent No.2 is voter for village Talwara Khurd. The Collector, after taking into consideration the said report and the comparative merits of the appellant and respondent No.2, vide order dated 16.4.2007 (Annexure P-1) appointed respondent No.2 as Lambardar of the village. On appeal, filed by the appellant, the said order of the Collector was upheld by the Commissioner vide order dated 16.5.2008 (Annexure P-2). On revision, filed by the appellant, the Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 22.4.2009 (Annexure P-3) set aside the LPA No. 2333 of 2011 -3- orders of the Collector as well as the Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Collector to re-consider the matter afresh, while deciding the issue as to whether respondent No.2 was residing in village Talwara Khurd or Ellenabad. On writ petition, filed by respondent No.2, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.1.2011 has set aside the order of the Financial Commissioner, while coming to the conclusion that once the matter has already been enquired into by the Collector on the earlier remand made by the Commissioner, there was no need to further remand the case to decide the said issue. Therefore, the remand order passed by the Financial Commissioner has been set aside and interference in the order of appointment of Lambardar, which was made by the Collector after considering the comparative merits of both the candidates, has been held to be not justified. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the order passed by the Financial Commissioner and the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner, we are of the opinion that no interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge is required. After the remand, the Collector recorded a finding that respondent No.2 was residing in village Talwara Khurd. The said finding was based upon the enquiry conducted by Naib Tehsildar. Then after taking into consideration the comparative merits of both the candidates, the Collector appointed respondent No.2 as LPA No. 2333 of 2011 -4- Lambardar of the village. In our opinion, in these facts, the Financial Commissioner was not justified in again remanding the matter to ascertain whether respondent No.2 was resident of village Talwara Khurd. It is settled proposition of law that in case of appointment of a Lambardar, the choice of the Collector should not be disturbed until and unless, the higher authorities find that the Collector has escaped important material or action of the Collector seems to be out of extraneous consideration or the Collector has been misled. In the present case, the Financial Commissioner has acted contrary to this settled proposition. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the said order of the Financial Commissioner. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere in the said order. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 22, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE