SHONKA SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two petitions i.e. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 12908 and 12014 of 2007. The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 12014 of 2007.

(2.) AT the very outset, it may be noticed that this writ petition was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court on 19.2.2008. Subsequently, it was pointed out that the order upheld while dismissing the writ petition was also under challenge in Civil Writ Petition No. 12908 of 2007. Appointment of Mohinder Singh Lambardar stood affirmed by dismissal of the present writ petition. In order to give a fair chance to petitioner Amarjit Kaur in CWP No. 12908 of 2007, the order passed in this writ petition of Shonka Singh's was re-called on 7.4.2008 and both the writ petitions were set down for hearing together. That is how, they are now taken up for hearing.

(3.) MR . Rahul Sharma, counsel for the petitioner in CWP No. 12014 has drawn my attention to the order passed by the Collector and the reasons for which petitioner Shonka Singh was non-suited for the appointment of Lambardar. The Collector declined appointment of Shonka Singh only on the ground that he was alleged to be in possession of shamlat land. Joga Singh was ignored as he was working as a Lecturer in B.Ed college. Counsel for the petitioner would say that the petitioner, Shonka Singh is not in any illegal possession of shamlat land and this fact was wrongly noted and the order passed by the Collector declining appointment to Shonka Singh. The counsel has drawn my attention to the ground of appeal filed by Shonka Singh where it is specifically pleaded that he had filed an application on 22.7.2005 to Tehsildar, Garhshankar to verify if any encroachment of shamlat land was done by Shonka Singh. The Tehsildar reported back that no encroachment was found on the part of Shonka Singh. This report was produced, alongwith written argument, before the appellate authority. Still the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner without considering this fact. The Financial Commissioner also did not take this report into consideration. If it is a fact that the petitioner has not encroached any shamlat land, which was the sole reason to ignore him, the order passed by the Collector without verifying this fact can be termed as unfair or perverse. Rather on the other hand, counsel for the petitioner would point out that there was specific allegation made against the respondent, who is appointed as Lambardar on the ground that he was fined Rs. 12,000/- for smuggling gold. Counsel for respondent No. 4, however, would point out that it was not a case of smuggling but respondent No. 4 was fined only for bringing gold for his personal use which was found to be more than authorised.