Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20711 = 2025(2) L.A.R. 317 = 2025:PHHC:168237-DB
Decided on: 03.12.2025
Present:
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Theft of electricity -- Allegations of theft of the electricity is not proved against the respondent No.4/ appointed candidate as he had no concern with the said premises and the electricity meter was in the name of father of respondent No.4 -- Even the Electricity Department has already exonerated the respondent No.4 – Further no ineligibility attached to respondent No.4 has been brought to the notice -- Respondent No.4 is working as Lambardar for the last so many years -- In the absence of any perversity pointed out to the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, which order has already been upheld by the learned Single Judge, no ground is made out for any interference – LPA dismissed.
(Para 2-5)
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL) –
1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order passed by learned Single Judge, dated 14.10.2022 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 18.07.2022, has been dismissed.
2. The issue raised in the petition by the appellant was that the appointment of respondent No.4 as a ‘Lambardar’ of the village Jundla, Tehsil and District Karnal was incorrect as respondent No.4 was held guilty of theft of the electricity. The Financial Commissioner held that the allegations of theft of the electricity is not proved against the respondent No.4 as he had no concern with the said premises and the electricity meter was in the name of father of respondent No.4 and even the Electricity Department has already exonerated the respondent No.4 of any misdoing as the house in question was being used by his brother. The learned Single Judge, upheld the said order.
3. On being asked to point out any perversity in the order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 18.07.2022 or by the learned Single Judge dated 14.10.2022, the findings so recorded by the learned Single Judge, as well as by the Financial Commissioner, have not been proved to be perverse.
4. Further no ineligibility attached to respondent No.4 has been brought to the notice of this Court. Respondent No.4 is working as Lambardar for the last so many years.
5. In the absence of any perversity pointed out to the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, which order has already been upheld by the learned Single Judge, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court.
6. Dismissed.
7. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
Appeal dismissed.
********