Alok Singh, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing the orders dated 16.5.2006 (Annexure P/10) passed by the Collector (Respondent No. 3), dated 13.6.2007 (Annexure P/11) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division (Respondent No. 2) and dated 15.10.2008 (Annexure P/12) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana (Respondent No. 1) thereby appointing respondent No. 4 as Lambardar after rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that as per report submitted by the Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the panchayat land. Order passed by the learned Collector appointing respondent No. 4 as Lambardar and rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, was upheld by the learned Commissioner and the learned Financial Commissioner.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Undisputedly as per the khasra girdawari (Annexure P.7), father of the petitioner is shown in the cultivating possession of the field Rectangle No. 7/1, 7/2 and the petitioner's possession is not recorded in the revenue record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that father of the petitioner may be encroacher, however, petitioner's candidature can not be rejected on the ground that his father had encroached upon the panchayat land. He has further argued that no eviction proceedings has been carried out against the father of the petitioner or against the petitioner for the alleged encroachment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that Tehsildar as well as Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) have submitted wrong reports against the revenue record under political pressure to say that petitioner is unauthorised occupant of panchayat land; and the Collector was misled by placing the wrong and incorrect report against the revenue record while framing opinion in favour of respondent No. 4 by appointing him as Lambardar of the village.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 4 has argued that since father of the petitioner is recorded in unauthorised possession over the land as per khasra girdawari (Annexure P/7), therefore, petitioner can safely be considered in possession of this land being family member of Puran Ram son of Shera Ram. He has further argued that petitioner has also encroached upon and in possession of khasra No. 113, which is the Government hospital land by putting cow -dung cake thereon.;