OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dtd. 3/3/2015 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Collector, Hisar, order dtd. 4/8/2016 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar and order dtd. 20/3/2017 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the report on which reliance has been placed by the Collector for holding that the petitioner is in unauthorized possession of Khasra No. 219 of shamlat land which was the ownership of the Gram Panchayat is dtd. 8/1/2015 (Annexure P-4), which is the report of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Hisar. He contends that the said report shows that one Shri Karambir, who is admittedly the nephew of respondent No. 6-Jagdish Chander, is in possession of the Gram Panchayat land. He contends that nothing has come on record except for the bald statements of some persons, who alleged that the petitioner had handed over the possession of the said khasra number to Karambir for saving his lambardan. His submission is that as per the remand order dtd. 21/5/2013 passed by the Financial Commissioner, what was required to be seen is whether the petitioner is ineligible for appointment to the post of Lambardar on the date of his appointment i.e. 10/5/2011 (Annexure P-1). He contends that the relevant date for taking into consideration the eligibility of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lambardar would be the said date.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the demarcation report, on which reliance has been placed by the Collector and other authorities i.e. 8/1/2015, clearly gives a finding that the petitioner was in unauthorized possession of Khasra No. 219 and to save his lambardari, he had handed over possession to Karambir. His contention is that the report of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), being on proper appreciation of the statements of the persons present on the spot, cannot be faulted with. He, however, could not dispute the fact that there is nothing on the record which would indicate that the petitioner was in unauthorized possession of any Gram Panchayat land prior to 10/5/2011, the date of his appointment as Lambardar.