JATINDER SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.1-Financial Commissioner (Appeals), whereby his appeal against the order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar has been dismissed. Resultantly, the order passed by the Commissioner, wherein he had appointed respondent No.4-Surinder Singh as Lamberdar of village Fattu Dhinga, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, has been upheld.

(2.) The argument raised by Mr. Bansal, is specific to the fact that opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner by the Financial Commissioner, as he was not impleaded as a party in the appeal filed by respondent No.4-Surinder Singh, against the order of the Collector dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P-2), wherein the matter had been remanded for fresh proclamation for the post of Lamberdar. Resultantly, reliance was placed upon the findings recorded by the Commissioner, Jalandhar to hold out that he had wrongly come to the conclusion that respondent No.4 owned 80 kanals of land in the village, while placing reliance upon Annexure P-8, the Jamabandi to submit that he only owned 18 kanals 8 1/2 marlas of land and, therefore, the petitioner had more land in his name to the tune of 96 kanals. It was further contended that it has wrongly been held by the Commissioner, Jalandhar that a criminal case bearing FIR No.70 dated 06.07.2009 under Sections 307, 323, 506, 148, 149 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, at Police Station Kotali, Kapurthala was pending against him, since the cancellation report had already been submitted on 04.08.2015, prior to the order passed by Commissioner. Therefore, his case had been wrongly ignored by the Commissioner, since he was not a party. It has further been submitted that the Collector had power to a appoint Lamberedar, which had wrongly been usurped by the Commissioner. It being the settled principle that the Collector is the best person to appoint a Lamberdar, which was openly violated by passing the impugned order dated 29.08.2017 (Annexure P-2) and which had wrongly been upheld by the Financial Commissioner on 29.01.2020 (Annexure P-1).

(3.) The said arguments have been checkmated by Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, counsel for the caveator/respondent No.4, on the ground that the order of remand dated 29.01.20016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the District Collector, Kapurthala, wherein directions had been given to issue fresh proclamation, in which observations had also been made that there is an FIR registered against the petitioner, had never been challenged by him and he had never been selected. He had not filed any appeal and, therefore, now has no locus standi as such to submit that the Commissioner had passed an illegal order appointing respondent No.4 as Lamberdar. The Financial Commissioner had thus rightly dismissed his appeal, though for different reasons, mainly on the ground that there were at least two criminal proceeding against the petitioner and though the matter may have been compromised, but when other candidates younger in age were available they should be appointed.