LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 968 OF 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: August 16, 2011. Parties Name Daljit Singh ...APPELLANT. VERSUS The Financial Commissioner (Appeals-1) and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih PRESENT: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the appellant. Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) JUDGMENT CM No. 2724 of 2011: This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 303 days in filing the present LPA. Application is supported by an affidavit. In view of reasons given in the application, it is allowed and the delay in filing the LPA is condoned. LPA No. 968 of 2011 (O&M) In this appeal, order dated May 27, 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing CWP No. 10238 of 2010, filed by the appellant, is under challenge. Further challenge has been laid to an order dated February 22, 2011, vide which application for review of the above order was LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 968 OF 2011 (O&M) -2- dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Dispute in this appeal pertains to an appointment to the post of a Lambardar in village Bhambuan, tehsil and district Patiala. After getting report from the lower revenue staff, to fill up the vacancy, the Collector appointed the appellant as Lambardar in the village vide order dated July 15, 2008. Respondent No. 4 went in appeal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner on June 10, 2009. Respondent No. 4 went in revision, which was accepted by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated April 8, 2010. The Financial Commissioner found it as a matter of fact that the appellant was in unauthorised occupation of the Gram Panchayat's land. To reject claim of the appellant, the Financial Commissioner observed as under: “I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The main issue agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it had been conclusively proved that respondent, Daljit Singh was in illegal occupation of Panchayat land and though, this fact was mentioned by the District Collector, yet he had ignored this fact on the ground that there was no evidence on record in that regard. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court passed in CWP No. 4581 of 2008 as well as Sh. J.P.Singla, Divisional Deputy Director (Panchayats), Patiala, who vide his order dated 17.6.08 dismissed the petition of the respondent, Daljit Singh, declaring that he was in illegal possession of the Panchayat land along with others in Khasra No. 133 totaling 5 Kanals 5 LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 968 OF 2011 (O&M) -3- Marlas. Even, before the Commissioner this issue was raised, which was ignored by him without citing any tangible reasons. Similarly, the issue of registration of a criminal case for which the matter was subsequently compromised, was also raised before the District Collector and the Commissioner. All this clearly indicates that the conduct of the appointed candidate, Daljit Singh was not satisfactory. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that a case of illegal possession on the Panchayat land was also filed against the petitioner, Satish Kumar. He has also produced copy of the order dated 11.6.09 passed by Sh. J.P.Singla, Divisional Deputy Director (Panchayats), Patiala, a perusal of which ultimately proved that no case was established against Satish Kumar and in the order passed by the Divisional Deputy Director (Panchayats), the Panchayat was asked to get the property demarcated from the Revenue Department to ascertaining, if there was any illegal possession. The learned counsel for the respondent failed to produce any copy of demarcation got done by the Panchayat, if any. All this clearly established that the conduct of the petitioner, Satish Kumar was unblemished and did not suffer from any disadvantage compared to the respondent, Daljit Singh. He is 8th pass and owns 25 Kanals of land and since there is no other candidate in the field, he has the right to be considered for appointment as Lambardar. Accordingly, I set aside the orders of the District Collector and LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 968 OF 2011 (O&M) -4- the Commissioner, and appoint Satish Kumar son of Radha Krishan as Lambardar of village Bhambua, Tehsil and District Patiala. The documents produced have been taken on record.” The appellant laid challenge to the above said order by filing a Civil Writ Petition No.10238 of 2010, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order. It has been noted by the learned Single Judge that a candidate, who is found in unauthorised occupation of the Panchayat land, cannot be appointed as a Lambardar in the village. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on May 27, 2010. Thereafter, it appears that on an application moved by the Gram Panchayat, some demarcation was got done, at the back of respondent No. 4, wherein it was disocvered that he was in possession of 25 Karams x 6 Karams of Gram Panchayat land. The said application was moved on April 4, 2010, and final report was given on August 5, 2010. By placing reliance upon that report, review application was filed, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated February 22, 2011. It was rightly said that authenticity of the report made by the revenue authorities is yet to be gone into by the competent authority. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Augustine George Masih) Judge August 16, 2011 DKC