- (1.) Lambardar of village Rohana expired on 02.02.2009. The process to appoint Lambardar for village was initiated. 15.04.2009 was fixed as the last date for filing the application. After receiving the reports from the revenue staff, the Collector appointed the petitioner. While appointing the petitioner, the Collector has observed as under: If kept in mind then in totality of the circumstances the side of Sat Parkash candidate is better than the other candidate Sat Pal. Sat Parkash candidate is resident of this very Thola Sadh while Sat Pal is not resident of this Thola. As per Naksha Lambardari and police report Sat Parkash candidate is resident of village Rohana and he has very good rapat (rapport) in village (P-1). Respondent, herein, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner, which was dismissed on 08.04.2011. Thereafter, he approached the Financial Commissioner who passed the order in the revision and remanded the case back to the Collector only to check whether the petitioner is bona fide resident of the village or not. In the impugned order, the Financial Commissioner has specifically rejected the argument of the respondent about he being more meritorious. It is observed by him "while I do not accept the claim of the petitioner regarding claimed superior merits because it is the prerogative of the Collector to evaluate the same". Though the Financial Commissioner went on to interfere with the appointment and choices exercised by the Collector and upheld by the Commissioner just to find out if the petitioner is resident of Tehsil Kharkhoda and not of village Rohana.
(2.) As per the counsel for the petitioner this fact in issue had duly been considered by the Collector while appointing the petitioner as Lambardar. The Collector has noticed that as per the Naksha Nambardari and the police report, petitioner-Sat Parkash was a resident of village Rohana and he had a good rapport. This issue was also considered by the Commissioner and despite this fact, the Financial Commissioner has still remanded the case for verifying the factual position regarding the residential address or status of the petitioner.
(3.) While so directing, the Financial Commissioner has observed that it is necessary that Collector as well as the Commissioner should have given finding about the allegation that the petitioner is resident of village Kharkhoda and not of village Rohana. While so directing, the Financial Commissioner has apparently failed to minutely peruse the order passed by the Collector, where this issue has been specifically dealt with and so is the position as would emerge from the order passed by the Commissioner.;