SATNAM SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 20.05.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Collector, Patiala, order dated 17.06.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and order dated 17.08.2015 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, whereby the appointment of respondent No.5-Jagtar Singh has been upheld as Lambardar of Village Basma, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.5 has played a fraud upon the official respondents and the State as he had with a mala fide intention shown purchase of the land by way of sale deed dated 23.06.2008 (Annexure P-5). This was only shown with an intention to fulfill the eligibility condition for appointment to the post of Lambardar. He asserts that the said land, which has been purchased by him, has been sold by him to the earlier seller on 17.01.2011 (Annexure P-8). He contends that the said aspect has been found to be correct by the revenue authorities as well. He, therefore, contends that the appointment of respondent No.5 having been based upon a fraud having been played upon the State, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. He, however, has brought to the notice of the Court that in pursuance to the said action of the said respondent, his appointment as Lambardar of village has been cancelled by the District Collector, S.A.S. Nagar, vide order dated 04.07.2016.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No.5, on the other hand, asserts that on the date of appointment of the said respondent i.e. 20.05.2009 (Annexure P-6), he was eligible and, therefore, appointment of the said respondent could not be said to be illegal. Since the appointment of respondent No.5 has been cancelled/he has been removed, the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous. His further assertion is that the date of eligibility is the date of appointment by the Collector for a Lambardar and in support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Inderaj Versus Financial Commissioner 1994 (3) R.R.R. 562.