TEK RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 17th September, 1997, Annexure P-7 of Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana.

(2.) THE Collector selected the petitioner for appointment as village Headman-cum-Lambardar by order dated 5th January, 1994. This order was set aside by the Commissioner who appointed respondent No. 5 as such. The Financial Commissioner set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored that of the Collector. That order of the Financial Commissioner was challenged by respondent No. 5 by filing a writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 3227 of 1995. The writ petition was allowed on 8th August, 1995. The order of the Financial Commissioner was set aside and the case was remitted to him for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. The Financial Commissioner, thereafter by order dated 17th September, 1997, Annexure P-1 dismissed the revision petition and accordingly upheld the order of the Commissioner whereby respondent No. 5 was selected for appointment as village headman-cum-lambardar. It is this order of the Financial Commissioner which has been challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, we are of the opinion that this petition has not merit and deserves to be dismissed. The Financial Commissioner after noticing the contentions of both the parties has given reasons in support of his order and thus it cannot be said that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. The other contention of the learned counsel that the Commissioner or the Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to select a village Headman-cum-Lambacdar again cannot be accepted. The Appellate or the Revisional Authority has a right to pass the same order that can be passed by the Collector. Thus the selection of village Headman-cum-Lambardar by the Financial Commissioner cannot be set aside on that ground. The contention regarding respondent No. 5 being in unauthorised occupation of the land again cannot be accepted because it is based on appreciation of evidence. It is not open to challenge in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We thus, see no ground to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Financial Commissioner in the matter of selection and appointment of village Headman-cum-Lambardar. Even no question of law arises In this petition. The writ petition is consequently dismissed. .