AMARJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 04.07.2011 (Annexure P -1) passed by Collector, appointing respondent No. 4 -Ravinder Singh as Lambardar of village Dhanaura, Sub Tehsil Mullana, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala, order dated 21.02.2012 (Annexure P -3) passed by Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, and order dated 17.01.2014 (Annexure P -5) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana, whereby appeal and revision petition filed by the petitioner have been dismissed, respectively.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that to fill up the vacancy caused on account of death of Sardar Singh, Lambardar (general category) of village Dhanaura, Sub Tehsil Mullana, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala, applications were invited from interested persons by making publication/proclamation in the village after obtaining necessary sanction from the Collector. After completing formalities, matter came up for consideration before the Collector. The Collector after appreciating the comparative merit of the candidates found Ravinder Singh -respondent No. 4 to be fit and suitable candidate and vide impugned order dated 04.07.2011 (Annexure P -1) appointed him as Lambardar of the village. Petitioner -Amarjeet Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide order dated 21.02.2012 (Annexure P -3) dismissed the appeal. Petitioner further filed revision before the Financial Commissioner, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2014 (Annexure P -5). Hence, instant writ petition.

(3.) ONLY argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 is an encroacher upon the panchayat land and referred to proceedings carried out by the panchayat, which have been placed on record as Annexures P -8 and P -9 but has failed to show to this Court that any demarcation was carried out to indicate that respondent No. 4 has actually encroached upon the public land. If at all respondent No. 4 has encroached upon the public land, petitioner will have every right to proceed in accordance with law.