IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8944 of 2011 Date of Decision: May 19, 2011 Jarnail Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing order dated 6.8.2008 (Annexure P-1) vide which the petitioner has been asked to furnish record/ sanad indicating that petitioner had been appointed as Lambardar. It has further been pointed out in the said document that the petitioner is not Lambardar according to the revenue record, and therefore, in case the petitioner attests any document as Lambardar in future, he would be liable to face consequences. 2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has CWP No.8944 of 2011 [2] been working as Lambardar and has an Identity Card. In such circumstances, impugned order dated 6.8.2008 (Annexure P-1) could not have been passed. 3. I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Identity Card is issued in consequence of issuance of a sanad, vide which a person is appointed as Lambardar. Appointment of Lambardar ensues after an order to that effect is passed by Collector while exercising his powers under Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (as applicable to Punjab). The respondents under the circumstances have a right to ask the petitioner to produce the Sanad vide which he has, allegedly, been appointed Lambardar. The said issue assumes relevance because the revenue record does not indicate that petitioner is the Lambardar. In case the petitioner was appointed Lambardar, he would have a copy of the Sanad, which he can produce in response to the impugned notice/ order. In such circumstances, I do not find any illegality in passing of order dated 6.8.2008 (Annexure P-1). 5. No ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 6. The petition is dismissed. 7. It is however made clear that in response to the impugned order, the petitioner would be at liberty to show sanad issued in his favour appointing him as Lambardar whereupon the official respondents can pass appropriate orders as required by law. (AJAI LAMBA) May 19, 2011 JUDGE avin CWP No.8944 of 2011 [3] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?