IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19032 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 19, 2011 Mukhwinder Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. K.S. Bassi, Advocate, for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) CWP No.19032 of 2009 [2] 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 10.3.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2 i.e. Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, and order dated 25.8.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab. 2. Facts in brief are that Lambadrar Dalip Singh died on 6.6.2006 whereupon the post fell vacant for appointment of Lambardar for village Rajla, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala. 3. Vide Order Annexure P-2, the District Collector directed appointment of Mukhwinder Singh (petitioner) as Lambardar for the village. On perusal of the order, I find that there is a reference in the arguments addressed by the counsel that private respondent (No.4) Narinder Singh is in unauthorised possession of Panchayat land and therefore, he is not a fit person for appointment as Lambardar. No finding however has been recorded, on the basis of material, as to whether Narinder Singh is in unauthorised possession of Panchayat land. The merit of both the candidates is by and large comparable. The Collector however has seemingly given benefit of hereditary claim to Narinder Singh. 4. An appeal was carried to Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala by Narinder Singh whereupon the case has been remanded back to the District Collector to consider the matter afresh CWP No.19032 of 2009 [3] de hors the hereditary claim of the respondent. The order has been upheld by the Financial Commissioner in revisional jurisdiction. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of remand is illegal and no further enquiry is required. 6. I have considered the contention of learned counsel. 7. This Court feels that the District Collector is even required to clarify the issue of illegal possession of Narinder Singh before adjudicating on the issue of appointment of Lambardar for the village. The Commissioner being the appellate authority is the best person to call for inputs before taking decision on the appeal and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is called for. 8. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 9. The petitioner and private respondent are directed to appear before the District Collector on 7.2.2011. 10. The Collector is requested to finally adjudicate and pass order by 25.4.2011. The petitioner or the respondent shall not cause any delay in proceedings. (AJAI LAMBA) January 19, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? CWP No.19032 of 2009 [4] 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?