Gurpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab Through Financial Commissioner

.

6.

Here, it would be apposite to state the relative merits of the petitioner and respondent No.4, which can be summed up as under:- Sr.

No.

Particulars Petitioner (Gurpreet Singh) Resp. No.4 (Gurmeet Singh) 1.

Age 35 years 37 years 2.

Educational qualification 10+2 10+2 3.

Land holding(s) 2 Kanal (as per petitioner's claim) 1 Acre 4.

Recommended by ----- Tehsildar, Tarn Taran and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tarn Taran

A bare perusal of the above chart reveals that respondent No.4 has an edge over the petitioner, inasmuch as his name was recommended by the lower revenue officers. As regards the age of the petitioner and respondent No.4, there is hardly any difference, and their educational qualifications are also similar. Moreover, respondent No.4 owns more land than the petitioner.

8.

In the instant case, apparently, all the revenue authorities, i.e. the Collector, the Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, have taken a concurrent view in favour of respondent No.4. In my considered view, the same is in consonance with the 09.07.2025 Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.2217 of 2024 titled as "Murti Devi Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.", wherein it has been observed as under:- 9.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no compelling reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Resultantly, the

instant writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 10.

All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.