Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2016 DAILYLAW 3865 (PNJ)

KARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

LPA/1203/2023 · 2026-03-24

Harsimran Singh Sethi, Parmod Goyal

body2016

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

LPA-1203-202 222 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI the Financial Commissioner dated 22.01.2016 20.01.2014 passed by the C the Collector appointing the Garhdiwala, Tehsil Dasuya, Hoshiarpur have been set aside, the case back to the Collector for fresh adjudication of the Lambardar of the Village Mastiwal, PO, Garhdiwala, Tehsil Dasuya, Hoshiarpur, upheld. 2. Learned counse given by the Financial Commissioner for remanding the case back for fresh 2023 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL) earned Single Judge by which, the the Financial Commissioner dated 22.01.2016 20.01.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar and 04.10.2011 passed by the Collector appointing the appellant as Lambardar of Village Mastiwal, Garhdiwala, Tehsil Dasuya, Hoshiarpur have been set aside, back to the Collector for fresh adjudication of the Lambardar of the Mastiwal, PO, Garhdiwala, Tehsil Dasuya, Hoshiarpur, Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the only reason given by the Financial Commissioner for remanding the case back for fresh IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1203-2023 Date of decision: 24.03.2026 .....…Appellant .......Respondents HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PARMOD GOYAL Single Judge by which, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 22.01.2016, whereby, orders dated mmissioner, Jalandhar and 04.10.2011 passed by as Lambardar of Village Mastiwal, PO, Garhdiwala, Tehsil Dasuya, Hoshiarpur have been set aside, so as to remand back to the Collector for fresh adjudication of the Lambardar of the Mastiwal, PO, Garhdiwala, Tehsil Dasuya, Hoshiarpur, has been l for the appellant argues that the only reason given by the Financial Commissioner for remanding the case back for fresh rder passed by , orders dated mmissioner, Jalandhar and 04.10.2011 passed by PO, so as to remand back to the Collector for fresh adjudication of the Lambardar of the has been l for the appellant argues that the only reason given by the Financial Commissioner for remanding the case back for fresh AVTAR SINGH 2026.04.18 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment LPA-1203-202 consideration for appointment of the Lambardar vide which has been upheld by the Learned Single Judge is that appointment the appellant was acquitted in the same later on, hence appellant should have been considered while evaluating the claim of the applicant for app 3. Learned counsel for the appellant further argues that once in the said criminal complaint filed at the behest of the respondent herein, the remanding the case too without any working as a Lambardar on the said post the Collector had appointed him as a Lambardar. 4. Learned counsel that though, the acquittal conceded fact but, when the consideration the said date, a should have been discussed was suitable for discussed by the Commissioner dated 22 Single Judge by the impugned Order is perfectly well. 2023 -2- for appointment of the Lambardar vide which has been upheld by the Learned Single Judge is that appointment the appellant was facing a criminal complaint though, he was acquitted in the same later on, hence, the said factum should have been considered while evaluating the claim of the applicant for appointment as a Lambardar, which was not done. Learned counsel for the appellant further argues that once in the said criminal complaint filed against the appellant/writ petitioner at the behest of the respondent herein, the remanding the case back would amount to putting too without any valid justification thereby and as a Lambardar for the last 15 years, he should be allowed to continue id post especially when after detailed evaluation the Collector had appointed him as a Lambardar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of that though, the acquittal of the appellant in the criminal complaint but, the antecedents of the appellant are when the consideration for his candidature took place and criminal complaint was pending should have been discussed upon in order to find out whether the for appointment to said post or not which discussed by the Collector and therefore the order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 22.01.2016, which has been upheld by the Learned Single Judge by the impugned Order is perfectly well. for appointment of the Lambardar vide order dated 22.01.2016, which has been upheld by the Learned Single Judge is that at the time of the a criminal complaint though, he was the said factum of acquittal of the should have been considered while evaluating the claim of the ointment as a Lambardar, which was not done. Learned counsel for the appellant further argues that once in the filed against the appellant/writ petitioner, which was at the behest of the respondent herein, the appellant was acquitted, putting of clock backwards and that and once the appellant has been he should be allowed to continue especially when after detailed evaluation and his candidature, the Collector had appointed him as a Lambardar. appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 argues in the criminal complaint is a antecedents of the appellant are to be seen on the date took place and therefore, once on criminal complaint was pending against the appellant, the same in order to find out whether the appellant or not which aspect has not been and therefore the order passed by the Financial which has been upheld by the Learned Single Judge by the impugned Order is perfectly well. rder dated 22.01.2016, at the time of the a criminal complaint though, he was of acquittal of the should have been considered while evaluating the claim of the Learned counsel for the appellant further argues that once in the , which was , and that once the appellant has been he should be allowed to continue a to be seen on the date on the same appellant has not been and therefore the order passed by the Financial which has been upheld by the Learned AVTAR SINGH 2026.04.18 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment LPA-1203-202 5. We have heard 6. It may be noticed that the only reason given by the Financial Commissioner complaint which was the same subsequently the respondent No.4 which shows that there was an benefit of which 7. In case a complaint been subsequently complainant in the way that candidature of the appellant amount to putting of prejudice to the app filed regarding criminal complaint where, the case should be to post of Lambardar. 8. Keeping in view the Commissioner fresh adjudicatio Mastiwal, PO, Garhdiwala, Tehsil Dasuya, as the impugned o are set aside. 9. The instant appeal is allowed. 10. The appointment of the appellant 2023 -3- We have heard learned counsel for the parties. t may be noticed that the only reason given by the Financial to remand the case back was that there was a criminal which was being faced by the appellant the same subsequently. The said complaint was filed by the father the respondent No.4 which shows that there was an benefit of which has been taken by respondent No.4 In case a complaint was filed which subsequently dismissed, and benefit of said aspect has been in the way that candidature of the appellant amount to putting of premium on the actions of the complainant so as to cause prejudice to the appellant. Since, in the last 15 years filed regarding the working of the appellant coupled with the fact criminal complaint filed against the appellant was dismissed, it is not a fit case where, the case should be remanded back for fresh evaluation for appoint Lambardar. Keeping in view the above, the o Commissioner dated 22.01.2016 remanding the case back to the Collector for adjudication of the claim for appointment Mastiwal, PO, Garhdiwala, Tehsil Dasuya, District impugned order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge The instant appeal is allowed. The appointment of the appellant as learned counsel for the parties. t may be noticed that the only reason given by the Financial to remand the case back was that there was a criminal faced by the appellant, though he was acquitted in The said complaint was filed by the father-in-law of the respondent No.4 which shows that there was an enmity between the parties, by respondent No.4. which turned out to be false and has and benefit of said aspect has been given to the in the way that candidature of the appellant is rejected, same will of the complainant so as to cause 15 years, no complaint has been the working of the appellant coupled with the fact that even the was dismissed, it is not a fit case remanded back for fresh evaluation for appointment above, the order passed by the Financial ated 22.01.2016 remanding the case back to the Collector for tment as a Lambardar of Village District Hoshiarpur, Punjab as well passed by the Learned Single Judge as “Lambardar”is upheld. t may be noticed that the only reason given by the Financial to remand the case back was that there was a criminal , though he was acquitted in law of the parties, false and has given to the same will of the complainant so as to cause has been even the was dismissed, it is not a fit case ment rder passed by the Financial ated 22.01.2016 remanding the case back to the Collector for Village as well passed by the Learned Single Judge AVTAR SINGH 2026.04.18 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment LPA-1203-202 2023 -4- AVTAR SINGH 2026.04.18 15:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment