BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause X of the Letter Patent is to the judgment dated April, 1, 1991 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 12280 of 1990.

(2.) THE facts, that need a necessary mention, reveal that the appellant herein moved an application for the creation of an additional post of Lambardar for village Rohan, Sub Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa. It has been his case all through that the Collector, Sirsa conducted a detailed enquiry through his subordinate staff regarding the requirement and administrative advisability for creating an additional post and on the basis of the said enquiry, vide order dated March 1, 1988/May 16, 1988, the Collector, Sirsa, requested the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar to create an additional post of Lambardar for village Rohan according to the rules. Relevant part of the memo dated March 1, 1988/May 16, 1988, which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1, reads thus :-

(3.) IT is the case of appellant that when the subordinate staff of the Collector has submitted its report, position in neighbouring village Desu Khurd had also been taken into consideration. As per report, Annexure P-4, population of village Desu Khurd, Hadbast No. 170 was about 549 and the Abiana demand of Kharif 1988 was Rs. 6456.65 and the area was 1013 acres. There were two Lambardars in the village as per the aforesaid report. On the basis of the three successive recommendations made by the Collector, based upon a thorough enquiry conducted in the matter by his subordinate staff, it is further the case of appellant, that Commissioner exercised his power under Rule 14(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules read with Section 28 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and gave approval for the creation of an additional post of Lambardar for the aforesaid village vide order dated October 10, 1988. This order was, however, not to the liking of respondent No. 4-Hazura Singh, who challenged the same before the Financial Commissioner on the sole ground that while creating an additional post of Lambardar, he was not given any opportunity of hearing. On the aforesaid sole plea of respondent-Hazura Singh, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner vide order dated March 17, 1989 for fresh decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to the said respondent. After remand, the Commissioner, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, again ordered for creation of an additional post of Lambardar of village Rohan vide order dated July 13, 1989. This was again challenged by respondent-Hazura Singh before the Financial Commissioner by way of appeal, resulting into reversal of order of Commissioner, which was ultimately impugned in Civil Writ Petition No. 12280 of 1990, thus, giving rise to present appeal.