CWP No. 7794 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7794 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: May 04, 2011 Gurpreet Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab and others ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate, for respondent no. 4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure P-3 dated 05.03.2010 passed by Financial Commissioner, Punjab. Vide order Annexure P-1 dated 14.06.2007 passed by District Collector, Jalandhar, the petitioner has been appointed as Lambardar for village Isspur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. Respondent no. 4-Makhan Singh carried an appeal before the Commissioner, which has been dismissed vide order Annexure P-2 dated 18.02.2008. 2. The respondent carried a revision before the Financial Commissioner, which has been allowed vide impugned order (Annexure P- 3). The case has been remanded to the Collector for re-adjudication, essentially on the ground to see whether the petitioner would be available to CWP No. 7794 of 2010 2 the residents of the village or not, as he owns land in more than one village. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been living in the village and, therefore, there was no occasion for remand of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the private respondent contends that since it is an admitted fact that the petitioner owns land in villages other than Isspur also, surely the petitioner would not be able to perform the functions of a Lambardar in village Isspur. 5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel. 6. In the order of District Collector, Jalandhar, it has been mentioned that the petitioner has been taking interest in the development works in the village and chowkidara is also collected and deposited by the petitioner, in assistance of the authorities. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is ordinarily a resident of village Isspur, for which Lambardar is to be appointed. In such settled facts, there was no occasion for the Financial Commissioner to have remanded the case for reconsideration by the Collector. Every order of remand entails another round of litigation. An issue that can be settled before the revisional authority, should be settled before that Forum itself, rather than creating litigation. 8. In the case in hand, perusal of orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 themselves make it evident that there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner has been absent from the village or that he shall not be able to perform the duties to be discharged under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. I have also taken note of the fact that the petitioner is 38 years of age, B.A. pass, owns sufficient land in the estate and has to his CWP No. 7794 of 2010 3 credit social service. No disability or demerit such as a criminal case etc. can be traced in the record of the petitioner. In such circumstances, orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner did not deserve any interference. 9. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. 10. Order Annexure P-3 is quashed and orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 are hereby upheld. 04.05.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?