Civil Writ Petition No. 12014 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 12014 of 2007
Date of decision: 24.3.2009
Shonka Singh ...petitioner
Versus
The Financial Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Punjab and others
...respondents.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab
for respondents No. 1 to 3.
Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate
for respondent No. 4.
RANJIT SINGH J.
This order will dispose of two petitions i.e. Civil Writ
Petition Nos. 12908 and 12014 of 2007. The facts are being taken
from Civil Writ Petition No. 12014 of 2007.
At the very outset, it may be noticed that this writ petition
was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court on 19.2.2008.
Subsequently, it was pointed out that the order upheld while
dismissing the writ petition was also under challenge in Civil Writ
Petition No. 12908 of 2007. Appointment of Mohinder Singh
Lambardar stood affirmed by dismissal of the present writ petition. In
order to give a fair chance to petitioner Amarjit Kaur in CWP No.
12908 of 2007, the order passed in this writ petition of Shonka
Singh’s was re-called on 7.4.2008 and both the writ petitions were set
Civil Writ Petition No. 12014 of 2007 2
down for hearing together. That is how, they are now taken up for
hearing.
On death of Sucha Singh, Lambardar of village Painsara
process to appoint new Lambardar was initiated. Tehsildar,
Garhshankar recommended the name of the petitioner with which
Sub Divisional Magistrate also agreed. Collector, however, came to
the conclusion that respondent No. 4, Mohinder Singh was more
suitable for the post of Lambardar and appointed him as such.
Appeal filed against this order was dismissed and so was the fate of
the revision before the Financial Commissioner. The petitioners in
the respective cases have thus filed these two separate writ petitions
to impugn the order passed by the Financial Commissioner etc.
Mr. Rahul Sharma, counsel for the petitioner in CWP No.
12014 has drawn my attention to the order passed by the Collector
and the reasons for which petitioner Shonka Singh was non-suited
for the appointment of Lambardar. The Collector declined
appointment of Shonka Singh only on the ground that he was alleged
to be in possession of shamlat land. Joga Singh was ignored as he
was working as a Lecturer in B.Ed college. Counsel for the petitioner
would say that the petitioner, Shonka Singh is not in any illegal
possession of shamlat land and this fact was wrongly noted and the
order passed by the Collector declining appointment to Shonka
Singh. The counsel has drawn my attention to the ground of appeal
filed by Shonka Singh where it is specifically pleaded that he had
filed an application on 22.7.2005 to Tehsildar, Garhshankar to verify
if any encroachment of shamlat land was done by Shonka Singh.
Civil Writ Petition No. 12014 of 2007 3
The Tehsildar reported back that no encroachment was found on the
part of Shonka Singh. This report was produced, alongwith written
argument, before the appellate authority. Still the appeal filed by the
petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner without considering
this fact. The Financial Commissioner also did not take this report
into consideration. If it is a fact that the petitioner has not
encroached any shamlat land, which was the sole reason to ignore
him, the order passed by the Collector without verifying this fact can
be termed as unfair or perverse. Rather on the other hand, counsel
for the petitioner would point out that there was specific allegation
made against the respondent, who is appointed as Lambardar on the
ground that he was fined Rs. 12,000/- for smuggling gold. Counsel
for respondent No. 4, however, would point out that it was not a case
of smuggling but respondent No.4 was fined only for bringing gold
for his personal use which was found to be more than authorised.
It could not be disputed before me that the petitioner has
not done any encroachment. It can thus be said that the reasons
which weighed with the Collector to deny appointment of Shonka
Singh, petitioner are not made out. Similarly the aspect of fine
awarded to respondent was also required to be taken into
consideration while considering the appointment of respondent
No. 4. From this position that emerges from the record, the
impugned orders passed by the Collector, Commissioner and the
Financial Commissioner cannot be sustained and are set aside. The
case is remanded back to the Collector to re-consider the merits on
the basis of material now available on record and pass an order
afresh in accordance with law.
Civil Writ Petition No. 12014 of 2007 4
Parties through their counsel are directed to appear
before the Collector on 15.4.2009.
March 24, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE