LPA No.675 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.675 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 06, 2011 Mukhwinder Singh .....APPELLANT Versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab, Chandigarh and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- Present: Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the appellant. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 19.01.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.19032 of 2009) filed by the appellant challenging the orders dated 10.3.2009 and 25.8.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner, has been dismissed. By order dated 10.3.2009, the Divisional Commissioner, while setting aside the order dated 12.6.2007 passed by the Collector, appointing the appellant as Lambardar of the village, had remanded the case to the Collector with the direction to decide the same afresh by passing a speaking order, after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to both the parties and to produce documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. LPA No.675 of 2011 (O&M) -2- The Divisional Commissioner remanded the case to the Collector on coming to the conclusion that the Collector had decided the case in a hasty manner, without properly appreciating the facts of the case. It has been found that the Collector, without giving any weightage to the hereditary claim of respondent No.4, had appointed the appellant as Lambardar of the village on the basis of the recommendations of the villagers, whereas, according to the Divisional Commissioner, the Lambardar is to be appointed by selecting a suitable person while taking into consideration the merit and de-merit of the candidates. The order of the Divisional Commissioner was upheld by the Financial Commissioner. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition and affirming the orders of the Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner, has further observed that the Collector without recording a specific finding on the issue as to whether respondent No.4 is in illegal possession of the Panchayat land, had passed the order appointing the appellant as Lambardar of the village. Therefore, on that aspect also, a clear finding is required as in his written submission, respondent No.4 had taken the stand that he had taken the land of the Gram Panchayat on lease. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned order, and in view of the factual position, we are of the view that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, no interference in the impugned order is required in the instant Letters Patent Appeal. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly not interfered in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction to set aside the remand order. We are further of the view that after the remand the appellant can put up his claim for the appointment on the said post. By the remand order, no prejudice is going to LPA No.675 of 2011 (O&M) -3- be caused to anyone. The Collector, in terms of the remand order, is required to decide the issue of appointment of Lambardar of the village after taking into consideration the merit and de-merit of both the candidates, and the order of the Collector will be subject to challenge by the aggrieved party. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE April 06, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE