IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.8181 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 28, 2011 SURINDER KUMAR ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Ms. Deepika Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. SS Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. SN Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 The matter relates to appointment of Lambardar for Village Nanheda, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala. 2 Petitioner-Surinder Kumar was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector. The Commissioner accepted the appeal of respondent No.4-Ved Parkash son of Surta Ram. The petitioner carried an appeal before the Financial Commissioner. Vide impugned order dated 31.7.2009 (Annexure P-4), the case has been remanded back to the Collector to verify about the encroachment on panchayat land by the applicants. 3 It has been brought out and is an admitted fact that the appeal of another candidate viz. Nawal Kumar, is pending adjudication before the Financial Commissioner and is entitled 'Nawal Kumar versus Ved Parkash and others'. Civil Writ Petition No.8181 of 2010 2 4 I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5 Attention of the court has been drawn towards para-4 of order (Annexure P-4) wherein it has been recorded that counsel for “respondent Ved Parkash argued that the petitioner has mentioned his age as 50 years whereas his age as on date is 58 years. The counsel for the respondent stated that the respondent has served the nation as he has served as defence personnel”. 6 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the above contentions are on behalf of petitioner-Surinder Kumar rather than respondent No.4-Ved Parkash and, therefore, the entire order appears to be without any application of mind. 7 There appears to be some error in the order (Annexure P-4). Be that as it may, the case has been remanded to the Collector to seek report in regard to encroachment over panchayat land by the applicants, including the petitioner. 8 Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed to the extent that the order (Annexure P-4) is hereby quashed. The Financial Commissioner may to seek a specific report from District Collector, Ambala, in regard to the encroachment by the applicants over panchayat land and, thereafter, adjudicate and take a decision himself, so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation and delay in the matter. It would also be desirable to take up all the appeals/petitions together so that in one proceedings, comparative merits/demerits of the applicants can be considered. Civil Writ Petition No.8181 of 2010 3 9 In case, the petitioner is continuing as Lambardar, the arrangement shall not be disturbed till final adjudication by the Financial Commissioner. March 28, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?