TEHAL SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER
LAWS(P&H)-2009-4-79
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on April 27,2009

TEHAL SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

RANJIT SINGH, J. - (1.)Two brothers are fighting hard to get an appointment of Lambardar of a Village on account of the same having been left by their father due to his old age. Bachan Singh, father of the petitioner and respondent No. 4, gave an affidavit that because of his old age, he can not continue as Lambardar and in his place his son, i.e., the petitioner be appointed as Lambardar. It is stated that the petitioner had been helping his father in carrying out duties.
(2.)THE process of appointing the Lambardar was accordingly initiated. Munadi was effected and only the petitioner applied. After the last date of receipt of application, respondent No. 4, brother of the petitioner, also gave an application. Pointing out to the age of respondent No. 4 being 75 years, the petitioner seems to be objecting to the filing of application by his elder brother. Collector ignored the age and has appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar.
The petitioner thereafter has changed track to urge that this appointment was made without considering that respondent No. 4 had filed the application after the last date fixed. The petitioner then would refer to his merits, saying that he is younger in age being 50 years old and has more land holdings than his brother (respondent No. 4). The petitioner also pleads experience to his advantage as he had been helping his father. Petitioner had, thus, filed appeal before the Commissioner. The main grievance in the appeal was that application by his brother, respondent No. 4, was time barred. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner terms this order to be a nonspeaking one. As per him, this order merely states that the order passed by the Collector can not be interfered with. The petitioner then filed a revision against this order, which is dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 12.3.2008. He is before this Court through the present writ petition.

(3.)THE main Planck of attack against the impugned order is the late receipt of application of respondent No. 4. Plea is that it could not have been entertained. It is briefly disclosed in the writ petition that munadi was effected in the village and the petitioner was the only one who had applied. It is even not mentioned as to what was the last date of the receipt of the applications. It is then averred that respondent No. 4 gave an application for appointment, when the date had expired.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.