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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.