- (1.) Present writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 26.5.2015 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, whereby order dated 19.2.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, was upheld, setting aside the order dated 24.5.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Collector. Notice of motion was issued and in compliance thereof, written statement on behalf of respondent No.4 was filed. Petitioner has filed replication to the written statement by way of C.M. No. 11910 of 2016, which has been allowed.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. It has gone undisputed before this Court that petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by the District Collector, vide his self contained order (Annexure P-1). Respondent No.4 challenged the abovesaid order passed by the District Collector by way of an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division-respondent No.2. The Commissioner allowed the appeal of respondent No.4, appointing him as Lambardar,, by setting aside the well reasoned order passed by the District Collector. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached the Financial Commissioner by way of an appeal, which came to be dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 26.5.2015 (Annexure P-4) While issuing notice of motion, operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court, thus, petitioner has been working as Lambardar, during all this period. Primary allegation against the petitioner which weighed with the Commissioner, while setting aside his appointment as Lambardar, was that petitioner was in illegal encroachment on the public rasta. Another allegation against him was that he obtained a handicap certificate in the year 2009, showing himself to be 60% handicap of his lower limb.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically denied both these allegations. In this regard, he rightly places reliance on Annexure P-5 written by Gram Panchayat of the village, pointing out that land measuring 21 kanal 8 marla out of khasra No. 4772 has been put to auction for lease for an amount of Rs. 63,500/-. This auction was conducted on 16.6.2016. It has been specifically stated by Gram Panchayat that petitioner was not in illegal encroachment on this piece of land bearing khasra No.4772 and it was respondent No.4 who moved a false application only to level baseless allegations against the petitioner, so that respondent No.4 may succeed in the case of Lambardar. Regarding the disability certificate, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was disabled and the disability certificate was rightly issued in his favour, however, petitioner is capable to perform his duties of Lambardar. When confronted with the abovesaid material fact situation obtaining in the present case, learned counsel for respondent No.4 could not address any meaningful argument to controvert the abovesaid stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioner and rightly so, it being a matter of record.;