Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20470 = 2025:PHHC:136700-DB
Decided on: 29.09.2025
Present:
Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate with
Mr. Lakshya Saini, Advocate for the appellant.
Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Ld. Single Judge by giving details of both the candidates has found that the respondent No.4 was better suited than the appellant coupled with the fact that respondent No.4 has been working for the last 28 years, it will not be in the interest to dislodge the respondent No.4 from the said post -- No perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge -- Mere passage of time can, on occasion, give rise to judicial discretion to be exercised by the Courts, which has rightly been exercised by the learned Single Judge – Respondent No.4 is more educated than the appellant and both almost are having same land holding in the village and respondent No.4 has worked as Sarbara Lambardar at the time when he was appointed -- LPA dismissed.
(Para 4-7)
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL) --
CM-5205-LPA-2025
Present application has been filed for condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
LPA-2079-2025
1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to be order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP-16757- 1997 titled as Satish Kumar vs. Financial Commissioner of Haryana and others by which, the writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. appellant herein has been dismissed on the ground that the respondent No.4 has been working as a Lambardar of Village Balab, Tehsil and District Rohtak from the last 28 years and further in the opinion of the learned Single Judge of this Court also, the respondent No.4 is better suited than the appellant.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the grounds taken are incorrect as the Court does not have any jurisdiction to express its view and further, once the appellant was contesting the appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar, merely that his writ petition took 28 years to decide, the said finding cannot go against the appellant.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance.
4. Once, the learned Single Judge in paragraph-4 of the impugned judgment dated 15.02.2025 by giving details of both the candidates has found that the respondent No.4 was better suited than the appellant herein and coupled with the fact that respondent No.4 has been working for the last 28 years, it will not be in the interest to dislodge the respondent No.4 from the said post, there is no perversity in the impugned judgment dated 15.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. It may be noted that the mere passage of time can, on occasion, give rise to judicial discretion to be exercised by the Courts which has rightly been exercised by the learned Single Judge of this Court particularly in view of the finding recorded in para-4 of the impugned judgment that the respondent No.4 is more educated than the appellant and both almost are having same land holding in the village and respondent No.4 has worked as Sarbara Lambardar at the time when he was appointed.
7. Keeping in view the above, no ground for interference in the impugned judgment dated 15.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, by this Court is made out and the present appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
********