IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.23168 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 12, 2010 RAN SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. This writ petition challenges the orders of Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner, placed on record as Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-6, respectively, under which Hardeep Singh (respondent No.7) has been appointed Lambardar for Village Meerpur Kalan, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, being the son of deceased Lambardar-Sher Singh, has better claim. 3. On the second count, it has been argued that respondent No.7 has been summoned in a criminal complaint vide order dated 15.3.2010 (Annexure P-7) and, therefore, the antecedents of respondent No.7 being criminal, he could not have been appointed as Lambardar. Civil Writ Petition No.23168 of 2010 2 4. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. All the revenue authorities have recommended the name of respondent No.7 for being appointed as Lambardar. The District Collector has taken into account the comparative merits of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent No.7 and has come to the conclusion that respondent No.7 would make a better Lambardar in view of his higher qualification i.e. B.A., and land holding 137 kanals 17 marlas and also for the reason that his name has been recommended by Assistant Collector IInd Grade and Assistant Collector Ist Grade, considering all the relevant para meters. The petitioner, on the other hand, is 5th pass and has a land holding of 79 kanals 16 marlas. 6. I find that the criminal complaint was filed way back in the year 2008 in regard to a cognizable offence. It appears that on inquiry, no merit was found in the complaint and, therefore, FIR was not registered, whereupon criminal complaint has been filed. The matter relates to the year 2008 and was not brought to the notice of the authorities under the Land Revenue Act, for consideration. Summoning of respondent No.7 in a criminal complaint for a cognizable offence in which the police did not take any action cannot be considered to be an incident serious enough to ignore the claim of respondent No.7. If at all, any conviction is recorded against respondent No.7, the revenue authorities would surely take into account the said fact and proceed against respondent No.7. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that all the relevant facts and circumstances have been taken into Civil Writ Petition No.23168 of 2010 3 account, I find no reason to judicially review the order passed by the authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. 8. The petition is dismissed in limine. January 12, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?