DULI CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 14.09.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by Commissioner and order dated 16.03.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by Financial Commissioner, whereby the order dated 25.01.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by District Collector, appointing Duli Chand-petitioner as Lambardar of the village has been set aside. Brief facts of the case are that to fill up the vacant post of Lambardar caused due to death of Babu Ram, previous Lambardar of Village Bata Tehsil and District Palwa, applications were invited by making proclamation in the village after obtaining necessary sanction from the District Collector. After completing formalities, matter came up for consideration before the District Collector. The District Collector, Palwal after appreciating the comparative merit of the candidates found Duli Chand-petitioner to be fit and suitable candidate and vide order dated 25.01.2010 (Annexure P-2) appointed him as Lambardar of the Village. Suresh-respondent No. 2 filed appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon vide order dated 14.09.2010 (Annexure P-3) accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the District Collector, Palwal with the direction to appoint Suresh-respondent No. 2 as Lambardar of the village. Petitioner filed revision under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the Financial Commissioner, who vide order dated 16.03.2011 (Annexure P-4) affirmed the order of the Commissioner. Hence, the instant writ petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Duli Chand petitioner was rightly appointed as Lambardar of the village by the District Collector. The Commissioner has wrongly set aside the order of the District Collector. The Financial Commissioner has also wrongly dismissed the revision by recording a finding that petitioner is not resident of the village and respondent has hereditary claim being son of deceased Lambardar. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that hereditary claim has been held to be unconstitutional.