L.P.A. No.178 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.178 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 04, 2011 Satish Kumar .....APPELLANT Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.18453 of 2010) filed by the appellant challenging the orders passed by the revenue authorities, appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village, has been dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned order as well as the orders passed by the revenue authorities. In the present case, the Collector, who is the appointing authority of the Lambardar under the Punjab Land Revenue Act,1887, after taking into consideration the comparative merit of the appellant and L.P.A. No.178 of 2011 -2- respondent No.4, had appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village. The said order of the Collector was upheld by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. The appellant challenged the orders of the revenue authorities by filing the aforesaid writ petition. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant argued that during the pendency of the proceedings, the Tehsildar of the village had carried out the demarcation within the abadi deh in which four residents of the village, including respondent No.4, were found in unauthorized occupation of the Panchayat property. It is admitted case that on the basis of the said demarcation report, neither the appellant nor any inhabitant of the village nor the Gram Panchayat, who are having the locus standi, filed any application for ejectment of respondent No.4 from the said alleged unauthorized occupation. The learned Single Judge, after perusing the said report, prima-facie had taken the view that the said report appears to be motivated, therefore, on the basis of such report, the appointment of respondent No.4, who has been appointed by the authorities on merit, cannot be said to be illegal and perverse. In our view, on the basis of the said conclusion, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner (appellant herein). We do not find any substance in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE April 04, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE