SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 16.11.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.4 Rajinder Kumar (one of the candidates for the appointment of Lambardar) has been partly allowed; and while setting aside the order dated 18.8.2009, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dismissing the revision of respondent No.4, the matter has been remitted to the Financial Commissioner to re-consider the revision afresh in accordance with law within 3 months from the receipt of a certified copy of the order. It has been specifically ordered that the Financial Commissioner would be at liberty to assess the merits of the parties and pass an order appointing the best candidate as a Lambardar.
(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned order as well as the order of the learned Financial Commissioner, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The dispute in the present case is regarding the appointment of Lambardar of village Nissing, Tehsil and District Karnal. Initially, the Collector, Karnal, appointed one Shamsher Singh (respondent No.5) as Lambardar. The Commissioner, Rohtak Division (Camp at Karnal), set aside the said order and remanded the matter to the Collector for fresh decision on three issues, namely : (i) Whether Shamsher Singh (respondent No.5) is an employee of Food and Supplies Department and if so, whether he will be available to the public? (ii) Whether Ram Pal (appellant), another candidate, is free from the liability of the village societies?; and (iii) Whether Rajinder Kumar (respondent No.4) has been acquitted in the criminal case registered against him?
(3.) The Collector, ignoring the acquittal of Rajinder Kumar, held that he was not eligible for being appointed as Lambardar and appellant Ram Pal was appointed as Lambardar. The order of the Collector was affirmed by the Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner, though observed that respondent No.4 was acquitted of the charges, but held that since he was involved in a criminal case, therefore, it was not appropriate to appoint him as Lambardar of the village. The learned Single Judge, while setting aside the order of the Financial Commissioner and remitting the matter to him to re-consider the revision afresh, has observed that once respondent No.4 was acquitted of the charges, as none of the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution case, it should not be taken as adverse factor against him and he cannot be deemed to be ineligible for being appointed as Lambardar. It has also been noticed that the Financial Commissioner has further non-suited respondent No.4 on the ground that his father and grand-father are in unauthorised possession of Panchayat property. It has been held that unauthorised possession of relatives, howsoever close, cannot visit a candidate with adverse consequences unless it is established that he has drawn benefit of their unauthorised possession. Since there was no such evidence, therefore, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Financial Commissioner and remitted the matter to him to re-consider the revision afresh.;