PUNJAB SINGH Vs. HAKAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against order dated 17.1.1995 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Ambala Division upholding the Collector's order dated 4.10.1994 in a Lambardari case. The revision petition had been dismissed in default by the then Financial Commissioner (Dr. Tarsem Lal) vide his order dated 13.3.1996 and also an application for restoration of the case for hearing on merits was also dismissed by me vide order dated 21.5.1997 as the counsel did not advance any cogent and logical reasons for the restoration of the revision petition dismissed in default on 13.3.1996. The petitioner Punjab Singh then filed a CWP No. 17129 of 1997 Punjab Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Haryana etc. before the High Court who vide its order dated 19.11.1997 has set aside both the aforereferred orders of the Financial Commissioners and remanded the case for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law. Hence the case.

(2.) FACTS of the case are that in response to Mushtri Munadi for filling up a vacancy of Lambardar arising on account of demise of Babu Singh the then Lambardar of Village Bara Gaon, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, the petitioner Punjab Singh and the respondent Hakam Singh applied for the post. The Collector finding Punjab Singh petitioner 60 years old, defaulter of bank on the date of application; whereas the respondent Hakam Singh is 55 years old, son of the Lambardar Babu Singh then deceased, ordered appointment of the respondent as Lambardar vide his order dated 4.10.1994. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Commissioner Ambala Division who vide his order dated 17.1.1995 dismissed the appeal finding no perversity in the Collector's order. The petitioner Punjab Singh then filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

(3.) ON the other hand the counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner was a defaulter of State Bank of India on the date of filing of the application for Lambardari. The counsel states that both the lower revenue courts have rightly ordered the appointment of the respondent; and prays that the revision petition be dismissed.