HASMAT KHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an intra-court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against an order and judgment dated 14.02.2017, rendered by the learned Single Judge, vide which the writ petition preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 01.09.2014 passed by the Financial Commissioner, whereby appointment of respondent No.4 - Sudhir Kumar as Lambardar was affirmed, has since been dismissed.

(2.) The facts that are required to be noticed are limited.

(3.) Owing to death of Ram Dass, the post of Nambardar in Village Karhera, Sub Tehsil Firozepur Jhirka, District Nuh, fell vacant. Pursuant to the process initiated by respondent-authorities to fill up the said post, many candidates including the appellant as also the private respondents submitted their claims. Upon evaluating the comparative merit of the candidates, the District Collector, Gurgaon, found respondent-Sudhir Kumar to be most suitable and vide order dated 01.03.2001, he was appointed as Lambardar. The said order was assailed in appeal and was set aside by the Commissioner vide order dated 17.01.2002, for there was nothing conclusive to show that respondent-Sudhir Kumar was even a resident of Village Karhera. The matter was accordingly remitted to the Collector for re-decision. Post remand, an inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Collector, who submitted a report dated 27.09.2002, whereupon vide order dated 30.01.2003, the Collector reiterated its decision as also the appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar. Even the said order was assailed in appeal and was set aside by the Commissioner vide order dated 20.10.2005, for the material on record showed that respondent-Sudhir Kumar was a resident of Janakpuri in Delhi. Once again, the matter was remitted to the District Collector to ascertain if respondent No.4 was indeed a resident of Village Karhera. Upon carrying out the necessary exercise, Naib Tehsildar, Nagina submitted a report dated 26.02.2007 to the District Collector, Mewat and clarified that although Sudhir Kumar owned a house in Village Karhera, but he was not a permanent resident of the said Village. However, despite that report, the District Collector, vide order dated 28.11.2007, reiterated the appointment of respondent-Sudhir Kumar as Lambardar. Appellant-Hasmat Khan challenged the said order in appeal before the Commissioner, who vide order dated 29.12.2008 set aside the same, as it was observed that despite two earlier orders passed by the Commissioner, whereby the matter was remitted to verify if respondent-Sudhir Kumar was a permanent resident of Village Karhera and despite the report dated 26.02.2007, he was appointed as Lambardar. For there existed a doubt, if respondent No.4 was actually a permanent resident of Village Karhera, the matter was remitted and S.D.O. (Civil), Ferozepur Jhirka, was appointed as an inquiry officer and to visit the spot himself and conduct an open inquiry, whereupon a speaking order was required to be passed by the District Collector. However, being aggrieved against the said order, respondent-Sudhir Kumar filed a revision under Section 13(C) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. Vide order dated 01.09.2014, the Financial Commissioner while recording a finding that respondent No.4 had a house and was permanent resident of village Karhera, set aside the order passed by the Commissioner dated 29.12.2008 and affirmed the appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar. Which is why, appellant-Hasmat Khan assailed the said order vide a writ petition referred to above, which has since been dismissed. Thus, this appeal.