LPA No. 574 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 574 of 2010 Date of Decision: 06.05.2010 Sukhdev Singh ....Appellant. Versus Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. In this intra-Court appeal, order under challenge is dated 12.1.2009 passed by learned Single Judge, thereby allowing CWP No.3507 of 2008, setting aside the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 2.8.2007. 2. Brief facts of the present case pertain to the post of Lamberdar in Village Kothaguru, Tehsil Rampuraphul, District Bathinda. The then Lamberdar Kulwant Singh died on 11.5.2002, hence vacancy arose for the post of Lamberdar. The writ petitioner as well as respondent No.4 applied for appointment as Lamberdar. The writ petitioner was appointed as LPA No. 574 of 2010 2 Lamberdar by the Collector vide order dated 11.6.2004 after the recommendations made by different level authorities. Aggrieved from the order of the Collector dated 11.6.2004, appointing the writ petitioner as Lamberdar, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, which was dismissed. The matter was carried to the Financial Commissioner in the shape of revision. The Financial Commissioner vide impugned order dated 2.8.2007 allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Collector dated 11.6.2004 appointing the writ petitioner as Lamberdar. The writ petitioner preferred writ petition before learned Single Judge challenging the order of the Financial Commissioner, which was allowed vide order dated 12.1.2009. Hence, the present appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. In LPA No.538 of 2009, decided on 17.3.2010, after placing reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram and others 2009(3) 439, we have observed that the opinion of the Collector appointing a person as Lamberdar, ordinarily, should not be disturbed, unless it is perverse. 5. In the present case, learned Single Judge has observed that the Collector's order does not suffer from perversity or illegality which may call for any interference. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the Collector, the Divisional Commissioner as well as of learned Single Judge. 6. We have no hesitation to hold that the revisional authority should not lightly interfere with the opinion formed by the Collector, appointing Lamberdar under Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, LPA No. 574 of 2010 3 which was duly confirmed by the appellate authority. The revisional authority can interfere only when it finds that order passed by the Collector appointing a person as Lamberdar, suffers from any jurisdictional error or such other procedural error, which can vitiate the decision or is without jurisdiction. The revisional authority/Financial Commissioner has not pointed out any jurisdictional error or perversity in the order of the Collector, hence order of the Financial Commissioner was rightly disturbed by learned Single Judge. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 06.05.2010 sk.