High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Lal Singh vs Financial Commissioner on 1 October, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lal Singh vs Financial Commissioner on 1 October, 2008
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH.

                                                  C.W.P. No. 17402 of 2008
                                         DATE OF DECISION : 01.10.2008

Lal Singh

                                                            .... PETITIONER

                                   Versus

Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others

                                                        ..... RESPONDENTS

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
            HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR


Present:    Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

                         ***

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )

The petitioner, who was one of the candidates for the post of

Lambardar of Village Siwaha, Tehsil and District Jind, has filed this petition

under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order

dated 14.5.2008, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby

the order of appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar has been upheld.

Collector, Jind, after taking the comparative merits of all the candidates

appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the said village and the said

order has been upheld by the Commissioner, Hisar and the Financial

Commissioner, Haryana.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding recorded by
CWP No. 17402 of 2008 -2-

the authorities that the petitioner was in illegal possession of the Gram

Panchayat land was only based upon a demarcation report submitted by the

Local Commissioner and no order of ejectment under section 7 of the

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 has been passed.

After hearing counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any

ground to interfere in the impugned order, as in our opinion, the observation

can also be made by the competent authority, while relying upon the

demarcation report and for that purpose, passing of the ejectment order is

not necessary.

Dismissed.



                                       ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
                                               JUDGE



October 01, 2008                          ( NIRMALJIT KAUR )
ndj                                             JUDGE