IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.851 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.2.2010 Sarmukh Singh. -----Appellant Vs. Financial Commissioner & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, remanding the matter of appointment of Lambardar to the Collector on the basis of recommendations made by the Assistant Collector. 2. The Assistant Collector dealt with the issue of filling up of vacancy of Lambardar (Headman), on account of death of Gian Singh, Lambardar, under the provisions of Rules 14 and 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules framed under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. He also considered the issue of appointing one more Lambardar apart from filling up the vacancy. LPA No.851 of 2009 Recommendation was made accordingly. The Collector remanded the matter for completing the legal procedure, as mentioned in the order of remand dated 25.7.2001. Thereafter, there were further proceedings and vide order dated 16.10.2002, the Collector again remanded the matter to Assistant Collector. The said order was upheld by the Financial Commissioner, against which writ petition was filed. The writ petition of the appellant was heard alongwith the writ petition of another candidate Darshan Singh. Learned Single Judge held that the Collector should not have remanded the matter to Assistant Collector but decided the same himself. Accordingly, the Collector was directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that after remand to the Assistant Collector, the petitioner had yet to avail his opportunity of presenting his case and direction of learned Single Judge, requiring the Collector to deal with the issue, will deprive the appellant of opportunity of putting forward his case. 5. We do not find any merit in the contention. There is no bar to the appellant presenting his view point to the Collector in accordance with law. There is, thus, no ground to interfere with the impugned order of learned Single Judge. It is made clear that 2 LPA No.851 of 2009 the appellant will be at liberty to put forward his case before the Collector. 6. The appeal is disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 09, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3