IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.472 of 2010 Date of decision: 02.07.2010 Devi Singh …..Appellant versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Sudershan Goel, Mr.R.N.Singal and Mr.Gaurav Jindal, Advocates for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) The petitioner and respondent No.5 were candidates for the post of Lamberdar in village Thalod, tehsil Tosham, district Bhiwani. The Collector appointed respondent No.5 as a Lamberdar. Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Commissioner. He also remained unsuccessful before the Financial Commissioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No.631 of 2010, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 15.1.2010. Hence, this appeal. Before the learned Single Judge the only objection raised against appointment of respondent No.5 as Lamberdar was that he had mortgaged his entire land with the Bank and as such, he was not eligible to be appointed as Lambardar of the village. This contention was negatived by the learned Single Judge by observing as under:- Letters Patent Appeal No.472 of 2010 “I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned orders and do not find any error of law as would require interference. It is true that a candidate for the post of Lambardar must be free from indebtedness. A simple loan from a bank particularly when there is no allegation of default in the payment of loan does not fall within the disability envisaged by the expression “free from indebtedness” as contained in Rule 15(1)(i)(d) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. A loan from a bank cannot be itself be held to be disqualification, as such in interpretation of the expression “free from indebtedness” would bar a person from raising a loan. In the absence of any allegation that respondent No.5 has defaulted in the payment of instalments of the loan, it cannot be said that he is in any manner indebted, so as to disqualify him from being appointed as a Lambardar.” We feel that the order passed is perfectly justified. It is not the case of the petitioner that after raising loan, the respondent has not invested the same for some good purposes and at present he is not getting any income whatsoever from any other source. Otherwise also, this point was not taken before the Courts below. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 02.07.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 2