C.O.C.P. No.1147 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.1147 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : 26-11-2009 Padam Singh .... Petitioner VERSUS Rajender Gehlaut .... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. Present:- Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Kumar Jindal, Addl.A.G., Haryana for the respondent. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (Oral). As per the averments made in this petition, father of the petitioner was Lambardar of the village. After his death one Phool Kumar was appointed as Lambardar of the village by the Collector, Sonepat. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid appointment before the Commissioner Rohtak Division, Rohtak, who vide order dated 2.5.2008, had reversed the order of the Collector and appointed the petitioner as Lambardar. The revision petition filed by Phool Kumar, challenging the aforesaid order, was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana vide order dated 2.1.2009. According to the petitioner, after the aforesaid order dated 2.1.2009, he was issued identity card as Lambardar and he C.O.C.P. No.1147 of 2009(O&M) -2- resumed the charge of Lambardar and working as such, and collecting tax. Aggrieved against the orders passed by the Commissioner Rohtak, and Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Phool Kumar filed CWP No.289 of 2009, which was also dismissed on 19.1.2009. Phool Kumar filed LPA No.62 of 2009, which was admitted by a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 31.3.2009, and this Court also directed the parties to maintain the status quo with regard to the functioning on the post of Lambardar. Thus, according to the petitioner, after passing of the aforesaid status quo order, the respondent has started harassing the petitioner and has asked him to return the identity card, which was issued to him and therefore, according to him the aforesaid act of the respondent is a willful contempt of the order dated 31.3.2009, passed by this Court in LPA No.62 of 2009. In response to the show cause notice, reply by way of affidavit of Rajinder Gahlot, Tehsildar, Sonepat was filed, wherein it has been submitted that no identity card was issued to the petitioner and there is no entry of it in the office. It is further mentioned in the reply that the petitioner cannot effect recovery of any tax in the absence of issuance of Khatoni-Nehar. In fact, the Khatoni-Nehar, for effecting the recovery of kharif 2008, was issued in the name of Phool Kumar Lambardar. Thus, the stand was taken by the respondents that in fact Phool Kumar is C.O.C.P. No.1147 of 2009(O&M) -3- performing the duties of the Lambardar of the village after the orders of the learned Collector dated 22.3.2007, appointing him as Lambardar of the village. It is further submitted that the order dated 2.5.2008 passed by the Commissioner, was stayed vide order dated 26.5.2008 and during the whole period of litigation, Phool Kumar was the person, who was performing the duties of Lambardar and as such, the contempt petition has been filed on wrong/false averments and the same is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The claim of the petitioner that he is working as Lambarder is solely based upon the fact that after the decision of the Financial Commissioner, he was issued the identity card as Lambardar of the village and he started collecting tax, resuming the charge of Lambardar, whereas the respondent has disputed this fact. There is no counter filed by the petitioner to the averments made in the reply of the respondent. Thus, keeping in view the unrebutted averments made in the reply filed by the respondent, I am not inclined to proceed further in this contempt petition, which has remained unrebutted. Rule discharged. 26th November, 2009. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) Monika JUDGE