ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order, were propose to dispose of three connected writ petitions bearing Nos. 18197, 18212 and 18700 of 2002 as challenge in all these petitions is to common impugned order, Annexure P-4, dated 8.10.2002 passed by learned Financial Commissioner, Appeals, Punjab, Chandigarh. The bare minimum facts, that, however, need a necessary mention, have been extracted from CWP No. 18212 of 2002.

(2.) THE matter herein pertains to appointment of Lambardar of village Taggar Kalan, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur. Consequent upon the death of Lambadar Iqbal Singh, out of those, who applied for the post of Lambardar, only four persons appeared before the learned Collector, who, after evaluating the respective merits of all of them, chose to appoint Ashwani Kumar, petitioner herein, as Lambardar of the village. Aggrieved, Tarsem Singh, petitioner in CWP No. 18700 of 2002, filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner, which was allowed vide orders dated 28.8.2001 and he was appointed as Lambardar of the village, thus, reversing the order passed by the Collector. It is significant to mention that order of Collector dated 21.2.2000 was challenged by Tarsem Singh alone. Aggrieved, Ashwani Kumar filed a revision before the learned Financial Commissioner, who vide the impugned orders, has appointed Sukhchain Singh as Lambardar. Before the learned Financial Commissioner, Sukhchain Singh too had challenged the order of learned Commissioner seeking to appoint him as Lambardar. It is, thus, clear that whereas Sukhchain Singh had not challenged order of Collector, but when order of Collector was reversed, inasmuch as instead of Ashwani Kumar, Tarsem Singh was appointed as Lambardar, he chose this time to challenge the order of the Commissioner. In the circumstances aforesaid, Ashwani Kumar has filed yet another writ petitioner bearing No. 18197 of 2002.

(3.) INSOFAR as revision filed by Ashwani Kumar against order appointing Tarsem Singh as Lambardar is concerned, in our view, that also could not succeed inasmuch as the findings, recorded against Ashwani Kumar, disentitled him to be a Lambardar, on arguments heard by us, have been found to be factually incorrect. It is significant to mention here that learned Financial Commissioner, in the impugned order, Annexure P-4, has mentioned that Ashwani Kumar has for long been in illegal possession of Central Government land. As per Jamabandi for the year 1994-95, his possession over 39//12(4-0) being half share of 39/12(8-0) situated in village Jahdpur, Hadbast No. 428, has been regularised. However, as per jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 of the same village, he was in illegal occupation on payment of Rs. 500/- as Lagan of Central Government land measuring 88 Kanals 11 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 250, Khatoni No. 366. It is because of this reason that the learned Financial Commissioner has mentioned that appointing Ashwani Kumar as Lambardar would accord him a position in the revenue hierarchy whereby his continued illegal of occupation and ultimate legalisation thereof would be facilitated and, therefore, the Commissioner rightly held the choice of District Collector to be perverse.