SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KULWANT SINGH – Appellant
Versus
RANDEEP SINGH & OTHERS – Respondent



##PAGE1##

(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:15)

(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:5)

(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)

(cid:22)(cid:13)(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:20)ti(cid:26)(cid:3)(cid:27)(cid:9)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:30)

(cid:17)(cid:31) !(cid:3)"#(cid:3)(cid:17)!$%&%"’((cid:3)(cid:20))*(cid:20)(cid:19)*(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:24)

KULWANT SINGH

...Appellant

Versus

RANDEEP SINGH AND ORS

...Respondents

(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:29)((cid:3) (cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:2)+(cid:16)(cid:22)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:29)(cid:11)*(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:10),(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:11),(cid:1)(cid:29)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:3),(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:3),(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:1)

(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:2)+(cid:16)(cid:22)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:29)(cid:11)*(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:10),(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:3)-(cid:1).(cid:15),(cid:3),(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:1)

Present: Mr. Birinder Singh Khehar, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Yatin Bunger, AAG, Punjab.

*****

(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:11),(cid:1)(cid:29)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:3),(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:3),(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:3)(cid:3)/(cid:3)(cid:14)*(cid:3)(cid:27)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:22)(cid:30)(cid:3)

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated

08.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP52511752014, by

which the writ petition filed by respondent No.15Randeep Singh challenging

the order dated 01.10.2014 (Annexure P55) passed by the Financial

Commissioner, Punjab, so as to remand the case back to the Collector for

deciding afresh the appointment of the Lambardar in the village Saparheri,

Tehsil Samana, has been set aside and respondent No.1 has been directed to

be appointed as a Lambardar.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

submits that the District Collector, Patiala, after due consideration, passed an

order appointing appellant5Kulwant Singh as a Lambardar vide order dated

27.09.2011, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P52. The said

appointment was challenged by respondent No.15Randeep Singh before the

Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, whereby the appointment of the appellant

was set aside vide order dated 18.09.2012 (Annexure P54) and respondent

HARISH KUMAR

2026.02.09 18:13

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgment

##PAGE2##

LPA523652017 (O&M) (2)

No.15Randeep Singh was appointed as Lambardar, against which order, an

appeal was preferred by the appellant before the Financial Commissioner,

Punjab. After noticing all the facts, the Financial Commissioner found that a

fresh consideration is required to be undertaken for the appointment of

Lambardar at the hands of Collector keeping in view the allegations and

counter5allegations as well as a report received from the Sub Divisional

Magistrate, which was also taken into consideration and therefore, the case

was remanded back to the Collector.

2.1 The said order of remand was challenged by respondent No.1

before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge vide impugned

order dated 08.12.2016 has set aside the order of the Financial

Commissioner, Punjab, so as to declare respondent No.15Randeep Singh as

Lambardar by upholding the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala.

2.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once the matter

was remanded back for fresh adjudication by the Financial Commissioner,

the learned Single Judge was only required to ascertain whether the said

order was valid or not, whereas, the learned Single Judge upheld the order of

the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, wherein the appointment of the

appellant was set aside.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top