IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 1839 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 03.10.2011 Sita Ram .... APPELLANT Versus State of Haryana and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Godara, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 6.4.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 4397 of 2011) filed by the appellant, challenging the order dated 30.7.2010, passed by the Collector, Hisar, has been dismissed. Undisputedly, in this case, at one stage, vide order dated 3.12.1992 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Collector, the appellant was appointed as Lambardar of the village, but on appeal filed by Dharam Singh (respondent No.3), vide order dated 10.5.1993 (Annexure P-2) the said order was set aside by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar and the de- novo proceedings were ordered to be initiated to fill up the post of Lambardar. The appellant challenged the said order by filing writ petition LPA No. 1839 of 2011 -2- (CWP No. 274 of 1994) in this Court. However, vide order dated 7.1.1994 (Annexure P-4), the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one with better particulars. It is the admitted case that thereafter, the appellant did not file fresh writ petition. However, on account of mis-representation of the fact that case of the appellant was pending in this Court, the appellant was paid honorarium for working on the post of Lambardar, in spite of the fact that his appointment as Lambardar was set aside on 10.5.1993. Vide order dated 30.7.2010 (Annexure P-5), the Collector, after coming to the conclusion that even after setting aside the order appointing the appellant as Lambardar of the village, he has been receiving the honorarium from the Government, has ordered for recovery of the honorarium from the appellant. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, filed by the appellant, challenging the aforesaid order dated 30.7.2010 (Annexure P-5), while coming to the conclusion that the appellant, by making mis- representation, has received the honorariums, therefore, there is no equity in his favour. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 03, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE