SAT PARKASH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lambardar of village Rohana expired on 02.02.2009. The process to appoint Lambardar for village was initiated. 15.04.2009 was fixed as the last date for filing the application. After receiving the reports from the revenue staff, the Collector appointed the petitioner. While appointing the petitioner, the Collector has observed as under:

(2.) As per the counsel for the petitioner this fact in issue had duly been considered by the Collector while appointing the petitioner as Lambardar. The Collector has noticed that as per the Naksha Nambardari and the police report, petitioner-Sat Parkash was a resident of village Rohana and he had a good rapport. This issue was also considered by the Commissioner and despite this fact, the Financial Commissioner has still remanded the case for verifying the factual position regarding the residential address or status of the petitioner.

(3.) While so directing, the Financial Commissioner has observed that it is necessary that Collector as well as the Commissioner should have given finding about the allegation that the petitioner is resident of village Kharkhoda and not of village Rohana. While so directing, the Financial Commissioner has apparently failed to minutely peruse the order passed by the Collector, where this issue has been specifically dealt with and so is the position as would emerge from the order passed by the Commissioner.