CWP-21414-2017 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 225 CWP-21414-2017 Date of decision : 27.07.2026 Vipandip Kaur ...... Petitioner versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab and ors. ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. P. S. Chahal, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amtiaz S. Sandhu, AAG, Punjab. **** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. Present writ petition is directed against order dated 29.03.2017 passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab whereby the Finance Commissioner reversed the order appointing the petitioner as Lambardar and ordered that the post of Headman of the village be filled after initiating the process afresh. 2. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 20.09.2017 observed as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that there is a misreading of evidence much less the facts of the case by the Financial Commissioner, who has recorded in his order that the petitioner has failed to prove that she is the daughter-in-law of Lambardar. It is submitted that the petitioner is daughter-in-law of Gurjit Singh, who acted as temporary Lambardar for 40 years and has nowhere mentioned in her application that she is daughter-in-law of Rachhpal Singh (deceased Lambardar). In this regard he has referred to the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21414-2017 2 attached with the petition as Annexure P-5. Notice of motion for 20.11.2017. In the meantime, operation of the order of the Financial Commissioner shall remain stayed.” 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by District Collector wrongly noticed that the petitioner is daughter-in-law of deceased-Lambardar and is a typographical error. 4. Be that as it may, he does not dispute that the Collector vide order dated 16.10.2014 appointed the petitioner as Lambardar after observing that:- “xx xx The candidate Vipindeep Kaur and Sukhwant Singh are Matric pass. Vipindeep Kaur is 35 years old and whereas Sukhwant is 60 years old. Vipindeep Kaur is owner of 5 K10 M of land, whereas Sukhwant Singh is owner of 64 K 3 M of land. But Vipindeep Kaur is daughter-in-law of deceased lambardar and is doing the work of lambardari temporarily. The Assistant Collector Grade- II, Dera Baba Nanak and Assistant Collector Grade -I Dera Baba Nanak has recommended the name of Vipindeep Kaur for appointment of iambardar of the village Metea. After the death of deceased lambardar namely Rachpal Singh Candidate, the Vipindep Kaur wife of Baldev Singh is appointed as lambardar at the vacant post of lambardar of the Village Metle, Hadbast No 440. Sanad Lambardari may be issued.” 5. Once the petitioner admits that she is not the daughter-in- law of the deceased-Lambardar, no fault can be found with the Financial Commissioner having reversed the order passed by the Collector which is based on wrong factual premises. 6. In view thereof, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the Financial Commissioner. DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21414-2017 3 7. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 27.07.2026 Dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.31 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document