CWP No.17537 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 17537 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 08, 2011 Karnail Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents CORAM; HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Madan Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Alok Singh, J (Oral) In the present writ petition, orders impugned are dated 26.08.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and order dated 23.3.2010 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby order dated 27.05.2009 passed by the Collector, Kurukshetra was set aside. Learned Collector vide order dated 27.5.2009 pleased to appoint present petitioner as Lamberdar of the village Haripur (Badam) District Kurukshetra. Order of the Collector was set aside by the learned CWP No.17537 of 2010 -2- Commissioner; learned Commissioner had appointed Balinder Pal (Respondent No.3 herein) as Lamberdar of the village. Learned Financial Commissioner has approved/upheld the order of the Divisional Commissioner. Against the impugned orders, Mr. Ved Parkash, (Respondent No.4 in the present petition), had filed a writ petition No.13718 of 2010, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.08.2010. Thereafter, Mr. Ved Parkash had filed LPA No. 1572 of 2010 challenging the order dated 26.08.2010 dismissing civil writ petition No. 13718 of 2010. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.11.2010 had dismissed LPA confirming the appointment of Mr. Balinder Pal (Respondent No.3) as a Lambardar of the village. Certified copy of the order passed by this Court dated 19.11.2010 in LPA No.1572 of 2010 is handed over in the Court by learned counsel for respondent No.3, which is taken on record. Mr. Pritam Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Collector was pleased to appoint the present petitioner as Lambardar of the village and finding of the Collector was wrongly disturbed by the learned Commissioner as well as the learned Financial Commissioner in total violation of the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram and others, reported in 2009(3) SCC 439. Mr. Pritam Saini has further argued that Mr. Ved Parkash (appellant in LPA No. 1572 of 2010) was never appointed as Lambardar by the Collector, therefore, any judgment CWP No.17537 of 2010 -3- passed in the writ petition and LPA filed by Ved Parkash shall not effect the merit of the present petition. He has further stated that since petitioner Karnail Singh was not heard in LPA No. 1572 of 2010, therefore, petitioner had not been given any opportunity to address the Court while hearing the L.P.A. No. 1572 of 2010. Mr. Saini further contends that present petitioner shall file Review Petition before the Division Bench against the order dated 19.11.2010. According to Mr. Saini, Ved Parkash (Respondent No.4) with the collusion of Balinder Pal (Respondent No.3) by playing fraud could get the appointment of Balinder Pal approved from this Court without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner who was appointed as Lamberdar by the Collector and order of the Collector was wrongly upset by the Divisional Commissioner in violation of the principles laid down by Apex Court in the case of Mahavir Singh (supra). Be that as it may be the fact remains that Division Bench of this Court has dismissed LPA No. 1572 of 2010 confirming the appointment of Balinder Pal (respondent No.3) as Lambardar of the Village. Judicial discipline requires that I must honour the verdict of the Division Bench of this Court passed in LPA No. 1572 of 2010, therefore, present petition is dismissed. It goes without saying that petitioner shall be at liberty to move review in the L.P.A., if permissible under the law. s 8.8.2011 ( Alok Singh ) BB Judge