Judgment:
LPA No.1974 of 2012 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh -.- LPA No.1974 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:
29. 11.2012 Sukhwinder Singh ---Appellant versus The Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others ---Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajive Bhalla Hon'ble MRS.Justice Rekha Mittal Present: Mr.Sherry K Singla, Advocate, for the appellant -.- 1.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?.”
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?.
REKHA MITTAL, J.
The appellant (Sukhwinder Singh) lays challenge to order dated 16.10.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby his writ petition has been dismissed.
Counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No.3 (Resham Singh) is an encroacher of the land of canal in view of demarcation report dated 25.02.2011 (Annexure P6).which renders him ineligible, to be appointed as Lambardar of village Gaga, Tehsil Lehra, District Sangrur.
It is further submitted that a plea was raised before the Collector in respect of illegal possession of Government land by respondent No.3 but the Collector wrongly rejected the said plea.
We have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order, paper book and find no reason to entertain much less accept the LPA No.1974 of 2012 (O&M) 2 appeal.
The appellant and respondent No.3 were the contesting candidates for the post of Lambardar of village Gaga, Tehsil Lehra, District Sangrur.
On appraisal of comparative merit of the contesting candidates, respondent No.3 was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector on 28.07.2010.
The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and the same was dismissed on 06.06.2012.
The appellant has failed to adduce any evidence before the Collector to substantiate his plea that respondent No.3 has encroached upon any part of the Government land.
The demarcation report has been prepared subsequent to the appointment of respondent No.3 by the Collector on 28.07.2010.
There is nothing on record to substantiate the plea of the appellant that respondent No.3 was in illegal possession of any Government land at the time of consideration of his case for appointment as Lambardar.
The learned Single Judge has rightly refused to consider, much less accept the demarcation report, prepared subsequent to the appointment of respondent No.3.
Counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any infirmity, much less illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, warranting interference.
In view of what has been discussed here-in-above, the appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.
(Rekha Mittal) Judge (Rajive Bhalla) Judge November 29, 2012 mohan LPA No.1974 of 2012 (O&M) 3