BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Full facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass. Shorn of avoidable details, the case of the petitioner is that by an order of 13th July, 1989 (Annexure P-5), the Commissioner had held that "as village Rohan has two lambardars and specially so when the existing lambardar has been involved in crimes." Hazura Singh filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner who by his order of 28th March, 1990 (Annexure P-6) reversed the decision of the Commissioner and held that the Commissioner was not justified in passing the order for creation of an additional post of lambardar.

(2.) Mr. Verma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the order of the Financial Commissioner is based upon a misreading of the factual position and therefore is wholly untenable. He has also submitted that if the factual position as emanating from Annexures P-1 to P-4 is taken into consideration, the order of the Commissioner for creating an additional post was amply justified. He has also drawn my attention to Rule 14 of the Punjab land Revenue Rules to contend that the action of the Financial Commissioner was not justified.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Dogra appearing for respondent No. 4 has contended that rule 14 embodies only an enabling provision. It does not vest a legal right in any citizen to demand the creation of office of lambardar. He has also pointed out that in fact an application had been made for the increase in the number of posts of lambardars in the year 1984 which was rejected by the then Collector on 2nd November, 1984 (Annexure R-1). He points out that nothing has happened which may justify the creation of additional post. He has also claimed that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition.