IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

LPA No.638 of 2025 Decided on: 17th November, 2025 Kamal Singh .......Appellant Versus H State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.

Whether approved for reprorting?1 For the appellant: uMr.Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr.Divya Raj oSingh and Mr.Tejasvi Dogra, Advocates.

For the reCspondents: Mr.Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 4.

h Mr.Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sat Prakash, g Advocate for respondent No.5.

iG.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

The challenge, in present Letters Patent Appeal is by respondent No.5 Kamal Singh, to the judgment of learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.578 of 2013 dated 25.07.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge had restored the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Una dated 30.05.2008 (Annexure P-6), appointing Sh. Sanjay Kumar as the ‘Lambardar’ of village Jankaur, District Una, H.P. The order of

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

the Deputy Commissioner had also been upheld by the Divisional Commissioner on 11.12.2011 (Annexure P-9), but upset by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 11.12.2012 (Annexure P-11), which was accordingly quashed by the learned Single Judge.

2. The learned Single Judge was of the considered opinion that the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) while exercising jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenuue Act of the revisional powers was meant to subserove the interest of justice by eliminating the element oCf illegality or perversity and the comparative analysis of the orders of the two candidates could not have been done without opportunity of being heard, while exercising the judicial powers.

i3. It has also been noticed that the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) was biased by the earlier order dated 29.01.2004 of the Deputy Commissioner, Una which has been set aside by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra vide order dated 22.11.2006 and, therefore, the reasoning given vide said order could not have again been reiterated.

4. The present appellant Kamal Singh was distantly related to deceased Lambardar Joginder Singh and, therefore, his hereditary claim was held to be of no consequence. The observations earlier made in the case of Sanjay Kumar that he was not the original resident of village Jankaur, had not been appreciated by the Deputy Commissioner on the earlier occasion and it was directed that Rule 1 5 of Punjab Land Revenue Rules, which had been adopted by the State of Himachal Pradesh, did not provide as such. By the subsequent order dated 30.05.2008 of District Collector, Una the scales were foundu weighing in favour of Sanjay Kumar, as the District Colloector came to the conclusion that both the candidatesC were educated and both were distantly related to deceased Lambardar Joginder Singh. The weighing factor by the Deputy Commissioner was that he had been working as ‘Sarbarah Lambardar’ since 11.03.1992 and, therefore, was iexperienced enough to discharge the duties of Lambardar of village Jankaur.

5. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) had been biased by the fact that Sanjay Kumar was not the original resident of village Jankaur and he had become inhabitant of village Jankaur by way of inherting land through ‘will’ and secondly: the allegation of encroachment, as such on the Government land of the present appellant Kamal Singh had not been proved. It was accordingly held that once the Divisional Commissioner had set aside the order by placing reliance on the earlier orders it could not be a ground, as such, to upset the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commiss ioner.

6. The applicability of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1975 could not be considered as a ground for acquisition of the land only on the fictional circumstances by the uFinancial Commissio