Civil Writ Petition No.19220 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19220 of 2011 Date of Decision:14.10.2011 Ram Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner Revenue, Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Manoj Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) As is evident from the record that, petitioner-Ram Kumar son of Late Ram Sarup and Krishan son of Mangal Chand(respondent No.4) applied and lodged their respective claims for the post of Lambardar of Village Malra Sarai, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh, in view of the provisions of The Punjab Land Revenue Act and Rules framed thereunder(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act and Relevant Rules”). 2. The Collector did not find any suitable candidate and directed the Assistant Collector, to initiate fresh proceedings, to invite the applications for the indicated post of Lambardar, by means of impugned order dated 27.04.2010 (Annexure P-1), which in substance is as under:- “After hearing both the learned counsels and perusing the evidence on file and report of Naib Tehsildar dated 08.03.2010 it is found that the Ram Sarup Lambardar was expired on 13.03.2005 and Ram Kumar applied for withdrawal of his name from Rajasthan Voter List on 16.09.2005 hence struck down later on. Ram Kumar applied for Lambardar on 22.04.2005. So he got recorded his name in Haryana after withdrawing from Rajasthan from Lambardari. According to the(sic.) report of Naib Tehsildar dated 08.03.2010 Ram Kumar son of Ram Sarup is living in Village Keerpura, Rajasthan and Malra Sarai, Haryana both the places according to Civil Writ Petition No.19220 of 2011 2 his time means he still lives often in Rajasthan. Shri Krishan candidate is a teacher in Private School and also ejected from the illegal possession of Shamlat Land vide ACIIG Mahendergarh order dated 03.07.1996. So both the candidates are not eligible for Lambardari. ACIIG Mahendergarh is directed to conduct the Munadi asking application for the post of Lambardar of Village Malra Sarai, Tehsil Mahendergarh and recommend the name of eligible candidate through proper channel.” 3. Not only that, order(Annexure P-1) of the Collector was further upheld by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon(Appellate Authority) by way of impugned order dated 15.04.2011(Annexure P-2) and by the Financial Commissioner(Revisional Authority), by virtue of impugned order dated 10.08.2011(Annexure P-3). 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders (Annexures P-1 to P-3) and preferred the present civil writ petition, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. At the very outset, after arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any material, much less cogent, illegality or violation of any statutory provisions, in the impugned orders, so as to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Faced with the situation, learned counsel intends to withdraw the instant writ petition, to enable the petitioner, to pursue his fresh claim before the Collector, for appointment to the indicated post of Lambardar in this relevant connection. 7. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty, as prayed for. 8. Needless to mention, if the petitioner applies for the fresh appointment of Lambardar, then the Collector would consider his claim, in accordance with law. October 14, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE