K.S. Janjua, FC.- This appeal under section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 has been filed against the order dated 20.7.1998 of Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar in this lambardari case.

2. Facts in brief of this case are that due to death of Jiwan Singh Lambardar of village Sandher Jagir, Tehsil and district Kapurthala a post of lambardar fell vacant. In response to proclamation made in the village for inviting application from interested persons, 9 persons including the appellant and respondent applied. Revenue Officers recommended the name of Mukhtiar Singh- respondent but District Collector Kapurthala, found Tirlochan Singh more suitable and appointed him as Lambardar (12.12.1997).

3. Two separate appeals were preferred before Addl. Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar, one by the respondent and another by Sohan Singh. Grounds mainly taken in appeal were that appellant did not belong to the Patti and some criminal cases were pending against him. Addl. Commissioner (Appeals) found substance in appeal of Mukhtiar Singh and appointed him as Lambardar of village Sandher Jagir (20.7.1998).

4. Sh. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, who represented the appellant contended that appellant was appointed as Lambardar by the District Collector and Sanad was issued on 23.12.1997 and choice of District Collector should not be disturbed in Lambardari cases. The appellant has been non-suited by the Commissioner on the plea that he does not own land in the concerned Patti. According to Rule 15 of Punjab Land Revenue Rules, landed property in Revenue Estate is required. In this regard he relied upon 1980-PLJ-187. He submitted further that respondent is involved in so many criminal cases and warrants have been issued against him. On the other hand the appellant owns more land and is graduate. He pleaded acceptance of appeal and appointment of Tirlochan Singh as Lambardar.

5. Refuting the above arguments of the counsel for the appellant, Sh. P.N. Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for the respondent submitted that Lambardari belongs to Patti Prem Singh and land of respondent falls in this Patti. The petitioner does not have any land in this Patti, therefore, cannot be preferred over the respondent. He cited 1986-PLJ-440 and 1993-PLJ-90 in this regard. So far as involvement of the respondent in criminal case is concerned he referred to enquiry report of D.S.P. Kapurthala (placed in the file of Addl. Commissioner) in which it was held that name of Mukhtiar Singh has been mentioned without any reason. Moreover his name does not find mention in the police challan. Rather the petitioner is involved in cases under section 109, 326 and 452 etc. Counsel argued further that name of his client was recommended by the lower revenue officers, he is a graduate, young in age and financially sound. The Commissioner (A) has rightly appointed him being more meritorious. He pleaded for dismissal of appeal.

6. I have considered arguments and have perused the lower courts record. So far as merits of both the candidates are concerned, they are almost similar as regards age, qualification, and financial position. Allegations and counter allegations regarding involvement of both candidates in criminal cases appears to be result of party rivalry. Point of dispute mainly in this case is whether a candidate owning land in the concerned Patti is to be preferred or not ? Even the counsel for the appellant has himself admitted during arguments that it can be one of the considerations but not a disqualification. Therefore, respondent should have edge over the other candidate due to the reason that he has sufficient land in Patti Prem Singh to which Lambardari belongs. If a suitable candidate is available in the Patti to which the post relates an outsider should not be appointed even if he belongs to the same Revenue Estate. There can be no exception to this dictum. Apart from this lower revenue officers have also recommended his name and it is incumbent upon the District