IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1740 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 13.03.2012 Jasbir Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present:- None for the appellant. **** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Case has been called thrice but no one is present on behalf of the appellant. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 6.4.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Civil Writ Petition No.4442 of 2010 filed by respondent No. 4 was allowed and the orders dated 6.11.2008 and 17.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner, respectively, were set aside. Though this appeal is barred by limitation, and along with the appeal, the appellant has filed C.M. No. 4681 of 2011 for condonation of delay of 9 days in filing the appeal, yet, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merit and gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. In this case, respondent No. 4 was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector. He was the sole candidate for the said post. Against the said order Iqbal Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner on the ground that no proper munadi for appointment of the Lambardar of the village was made in the village, therefore, he could not apply for the said post. The LPA No. 1740 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Commissioner accepted his appeal and set aside the order of appointment of respondent No. 4 as Lambardar on the ground that no proper munadi was conducted, and the matter was remanded back to the Collector for inviting fresh applications by conducting proper munadi. The said order was confirmed by the Financial Commissioner. The learned Single Judge, has set aside both the above said orders on the ground that as per the evidence available on record, copy of which has been annexed as Annexures P-1 and P-2, which indicates that twice the munadi was effected in the village and in that regard rapat roznamcha was also duly recorded. Before disbelieving those entries no inquiry was conducted by the Commissioner and merely on the assertion of appellant that no proper munadi was conducted, the appointment of respondent No.4 was set aside arbitrarily. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge, has rightly allowed the writ petition because the Commissioner has set aside the order of appointment of the respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village without there being any proper material with regard to the fact that no proper munadi was effected. Mere assertion made by the appellant in this regard should not have been believed without holding proper inquiry by the competent officer. Therefore, in our opinion, there is no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 13.03.2012 ( T.P.S. MANN ) reema JUDGE