IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.2417 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 9, 2011 SATNAM SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) (ANIMAL HUSBANDARY) PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. IS Saggu, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This Civil Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 18.8.2010 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab. 2 The facts, in brief, are that Makhan Singh, father of the petitioner, who was a Lambardar, died on 1.1.2007, whereafter the post of Lambardar for Village Khaspur, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala, was required to be filled up. The petitioner and respondent No.4 were competing for the post. The Collector appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar for the Village, considering his larger land holding and better educational qualification. Civil Writ Petition No.2417 of 2011 2 3 The matter was remanded back by the Financial Commissioner on the revision of respondent No.4, the Commissioner having interfered in the order of Collector. 4 A Civil Writ Petition was filed before this Court. Under orders passed by this Court, the Financial Commissioner was directed to take a decision at his own level. Impugned order (Annexure P-8) has been passed, vide which the order of appointment of respondent No.4, passed by the Collector, has been upheld. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has served as Sarbrah Lambardar for 10 years and, therefore, has a better claim to the post of Lambardar, it being hereditary. On the second count, it has been argued that the land holding of the petitioner is sufficient for discharge of duties as Lambardar. The petitioner owns 42 kanals of land. 6 I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the context of comparative merit of the petitioner and respondent No.4. 7 The Collector appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar, while considering the land holding of respondent No.4 to be 42 acres and educational qualification viz. Graduation. The claim of the petitioner has been ignored on the premise that the petitioner is 5th class pass and owns 42 kanals of land. Since the merit of respondent No.4 is higher, the hereditary claim cannot be pleaded as a good ground to give preference to the petitioner. 8 Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to develop a case that at the stage when the case was before the Commissioner, an Civil Writ Petition No.2417 of 2011 3 application for leading additional evidence was filed, so as to indicate that respondent No.4 has in his unauthorised possession, Government land/Pahi. 9 The issue cannot be agitated at this stage because at the time when the applications were invited for appointment to the post of Lambardar, no such circumstance was brought to the notice of either the recommending authority or the appointing authority i.e. Collector. Admittedly, there is no adjudication on the fact, asserted on behalf of the petitioner. There has to be terminus of every lis. Because the said fact has not been considered in any of the quasi judicial orders passed, no scope for interference at the writ level is left. 10 If at all, respondent No.4 is in unauthorised occupation of government land, the petitioner would be at liberty to file an application for his removal from the post of Lambardar. 11 In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere in the well founded order passed by the Financial Commissioner. 12 The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. February 9, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?