C.W.P No.18057 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. C.W.P No.18057 of 2008 Date of Decision: 20.10.2008 Bijender Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Y.P. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. ... J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral). The issue in question pertains to the appointment of a Lamberdar for Village Jondhan Khurd, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat. Out of the candidates, who had applied for the post of Lamberdar, the Collector, Panipat, vide his order dated 9.5.2007 found the petitioner herein, namely, Bijender Singh son of Sultan Singh, as the most meritorious candidate and selected him for appointment as Lamberdar in place of the deceased Lamberdar Mange Ram. Ram Chander, one of the co-applicants, challenged the order passed by the Collector, Panipat, dated 9.5.2007 by preferring an appeal before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak. The Commissioner, C.W.P No.18057 of 2008 2 Rohtak Division, Rohtak, while disposing of the appeal, inter-alia, noticed the following factual position pertaining to the petitioner Bijender Singh: -- “There are allegations of encroachment on panchayat land against both the candidates. Both have given their explanation and tried to clarify their position. Respondent – Bijender has said that demarcation report of Retd. Kanungo dated 26.3.2007 is not correct. According to this report, Bijender has encroached upon Killa No.60(0-12), 226(1-15).” Having noticed the allegations of encroachment of specified land by the petitioner Bijender Singh, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, vide an order dated 16.5.2008 remanded the controversy back to the Collector, Panipat, with a direction that he should determine the assertion made by Ram Chander, whether or not, the petitioner herein, namely, Bijender Singh was an encroacher on land. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, which was dismissed by an order dated 14.8.2008. The petitioner has approached this Court so as to challenge the orders dated 16.5.2008 and 14.8.2008 (referred to hereinabove) requiring the Collector, Panipat, to re-determine the controversy after recording a positive finding, one way or the other, on the issue of encroachment raised by Ram Chander. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the issue of appointment of the Lamberdar for Gram Panchayat, Village Jondhan Khurd, Tehsil Israna, District Panipat, was C.W.P No.18057 of 2008 3 initiated in the year 1994, and that, 14 years have already elapsed and yet no final determination has been rendered by the authorities. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the acceptance of the impugned orders dated 16.5.2008 and 14.8.2008 would result in a further delay of an equivalent number of years before finalization of the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lamberdar. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Collector, Panipat, dated 9.5.2007, being a well reasoned speaking order should be accepted and the appointment of the petitioner as Lamberdar be upheld. Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, including the examination of the revenue record attached with the instant writ petition, we are of the view that the order of the Collector, Panipat, dated 9.5.2007, cannot be allowed to be implemented till a finding is recorded, whether or not, the petitioner is an encroacher on land. The order of the Collector, Panipat, dated 9.5.2007, did not examine the allegation levelled by Ram Chander, as has been extracted hereinabove from the order of the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, dated 16.5.2008. If the petitioner is, in fact, found to be an encroacher over the land, there is no question of appointing him as a Lamberdar. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are of the view that the impugned orders dated 16.5.2008 and 14.8.2008 were fully justified in remanding the matter back to the Collector, Panipat, for determination of the factual position, namely, whether the petitioner is an encroacher over the defined land as alleged by Ram Chander. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the instant C.W.P No.18057 of 2008 4 writ petition, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge ( Nirmaljit Kaur ) Judge. 20.10.2008 sk.