***

HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL) --

1. Prayer in this civil writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India, inter alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar (in short 'Divisional Commissioner') and order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-6), passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab (in short 'Financial Commissioner').

2. Briefly, upon removal of Shri Baldev Singh from the post of Lambardar of village Bassi Umar Khan, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, proceedings were initiated for filling up the vacancy, wherein petitioner (Mohinder Singh) and respondent No. 4 (Satpal Singh) were also the candidates.

2.1 The Naib Tehsildar, Bhunga, the Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hoshiarpur recommended the candidature of petitioner (Mohinder Singh) for appointment to the aforesaid vacancy and placed the matter before learned Collector, Hoshiarpur (in short 'Collector').

2.2 The learned Collector, vide order dated 15.07.2021 (Annexure P-3), appointed petitioner as Lambardar of village Bassi Umar Khan.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved against learned Collector's order, respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before learned Divisional Commissioner, who vide order dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-4), remanded the matter to learned Collector for deciding the matter afresh.

2.4 Feeling dis-satisfied, petitioner preferred a revision petition (ROR-453-2023) before learned Financial Commissioner, which has been dismissed, vide order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-6).

3. In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant civil writ petition before this Court for seeking relief(s), as noticed hereinabove.

4. Heard.

5. Apparently, learned Collector, vide order dated 15.07.2021 (Annexure P-3), appointed petitioner (Mohinder Singh) as Lambardar of village Bassi Umar Khan by observing that all lower revenue officers had recommended his name and that he was younger in age and more educated than respondent No. 4 (Satpal Singh). However, on an appeal filed by respondent No. 4 (Satpal Singh), a specific objection was raised that petitioner (Mohinder Singh) had encroached upon village/panchayat land, which rendered him ineligible for appointment to the post of Lambardar; however, said submission has not been considered by learned Collector. Another ground was taken that petitioner was a plumber by profession and remains mostly out of village in connection with his job, therefore, he is not available in the village to discharge the duties of Lambardar.

5.1 The aforesaid objections raised against petitioner were found meritorious by learned Divisional Commissioner and, accordingly, the matter was remanded to learned Collector for deciding the matter fresh, vide order dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-4).

5.2 Even learned Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-6), maintained the remand of the matter by holding as under :-

“5. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by both Counsel for the parties and gone through the record and perused the order of the courts below. After considering the contentions and examining the entire record, this Court finds that the present revision petition is devoid of substance and warrants dismissal. The impugned order dated 01.02.2023 passed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar is well-reasoned and passed in accordance with law as the Divisional Commissioner observed that the District Collector, Hoshiarpur, while appointing the petitioner as Lambardar vide order dated 15.07.2021, failed to consider the material fact that the petitioner is involved in pending proceedings under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, wherein the Gram Panchayat has sought his ejectment from land measuring 3 Kanal 8 Marlas, bearing Khasra No. 9//18/2(3-8), situated in Village Bassi Umar Khan, Hadbast No. 402, Tehsil Bhunga, District Hoshiarpur. The claim of the petitioner that he is not in unauthorized possession stands rebutted by the existence of the pending litigation, as supported by document Annexure A-1 attached by the respondent with his written argument. The Divisional Commissioner rightly held that the conclusion of District Collector finding the petitioner to be free from such possession was factually incorrect and contrary to the material available on record, including the Panchayat's ejectment petition. Moreover, this Court finds that the remand order does not confer any advantage upon any party but ensures that the Collector undertakes a fresh assessment of comparative merits and demerits of all candidates, including the petitioner and the respondent, in the light of facts that were previously ignored. It is a settled legal position that where a finding is based on an erroneous or incomplete factual aspect, remand is the appropriate course of action to rectify the defect and ensure a just and legally sustainable outcome. The petitioner has failed to point out any legal infirmity, perversity, or violation of principles of natural justice in the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jalandhar.

6. Accordingly, I dismiss the present petition and the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar is upheld. Copy of this order be communicated to the courts below. File be consigned to the record room.”

5.3 A perusal of above extracted order would show that eviction proceedings under Section 7 of Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961, are stated to be pending against petitioner in respect of land, comprised in khasra No. 9//18/2 (3-8), situated in village Bassi Umar Khan and in the light of pendency of these eviction proceedings, learned Financial Commissioner was of the opinion that the matter has been rightly remanded to ensure that fresh assessment of comparative merits and demerits of all candidates be carried out.

6. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, learned counsel for petitioner could not dispute the fact that eviction proceedings against petitioner were pending.

7. In this view of matter, I am of considered view that the comparative merits/demerits of candidates indeed require re-look at the hands of learned Collector, therefore, order passed by learned Divisional Commissioner and further affirmed by learned Financial Commissioner, remanding the matter regarding appointment of Lambardar to learned Collector for afresh decision, does not call for any interference by this Court.

8. No other argument was raised.

9. Resultantly, the instant civil writ petition fails and same is accordingly dismissed.

10. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand closed.

Petition dismissed.

********