SURAT SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, HARYANA, AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also gone through the paper book as also the order impugned before this court.

(2.) The petitioner had been appointed as Lambardar in the year 1977. A complaint dated 27.3.2001 had been filed by one Nathu Ram son of Dhani Ram to the effect that the petitioner had wrongly certified the legal heirs as indicated in column No. 9 and that the mutation was sanctioned on the basis of such certification The petitioner had been given the opportunity of being heard, by way of an inquiry as is evident from the orders dated 23.10.2002 passed by the learned Collector. The petitioner had categorically stated before the learned Collector that he may be pardoned and notice may be filed. It shall be appropriate to reproduce the aforesaid observations contained in the order Annexure P2:-

(3.) The petitioner, being dissatisfied, filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner, which had been dismissed vide order dated 13.5.2005. Still not satisfied, the revision petition has been filed before the learned Financial Commissioner, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 8.8.2005.