Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amaritpal Singh vs The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) ... on 25 April, 2024
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056548-DB
2024:PHHC:056548-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( Sr. No. 147 ) LPA No.908 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25.04.2024
Amaritpal Singh
..... Appellant
Versus
The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present : Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
***
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
(1) The instant intra court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.02.2024 by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition filed by him to challenge therein the orders passed by the Collector, Hoshiarpur appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar of village Lidhran. Through his writ petition the appellant had also challenged the orders passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar and the Financial Commissioner, Punjab upholding the aforesaid order of the Collector. (2) After securitizing the inter se merits of the appellant and respondent No.4 the Collector, through a speaking and reasoned order, appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of village Lidhran. On an appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the Collector, the Commissioner through a reasoned order upheld the Collector's order. A 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 22:13:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056548-DB LPA No.908 of 2024 [2] 2024:PHHC:056548-DB revision petition filed by the appellant before the Financial Commissioner to challenge therein the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner has also been dismissed.
(3) After examining the record, the learned Single Judge found no perversity in the order of Collector as also no illegality in the orders of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner.
(4) We have also gone through the aforesaid orders of the Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner and find that respondent No.4 has been recommended to be appointed as Lambardar because the authorities found no substantial difference in the age of the appellant and respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 was found to be more mature and intelligent.
(5) Dismissed.
(6) All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
(DEEPAK SIBAL)
JUDGE
25.04.2024 ( DEEPAK MANCHANDA )
sunil yadav JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 22:13:14 :::