The appointment of Lambardar is the prerogative of the District Collector and should only be disturbed if it suffers from gross irregularity, perversity, or patent error. Hereditary claim cannot be considered directly or indirectly, and the choice of the Collector is final.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order dated 09.07.2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, order dated 04.12.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commissioner and order dated 14.01.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Financial Commissioner, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment of Lambardar.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the death of Shri Bhagwan Dass, Lambardar of village Mahuana Bodla, Tehsil and District Fazilka on 04.07.2012, post of General Lambardar fell vacant, hence, the process for the appointment of new Lambardar of the village commenced. He submits that proclamation i.e. Mushatri Munadi was conducted in the village for inviting applications for the post of Lambardar. He submits that in pursuant to the same, 11 applications were received for this post and out of total 11 candidates, 5 candidates, namely, Jajpreet Singh, Gagandeep Singh, Subash Chander, Resham Singh and Sandeep Singh did not appear and thus, they were proceeded ex parte. He submits that Naib Tehsildar Arniwala Shekhsubah after collecting report about the conduct of remaining candidates, submitted a report to SDM, Fazilka for recommending the name of Jasvir Singh (respondent No.5). He submits that out of these 6 candidates, only 2 candidates, namely, Jasvir Singh (respondent no.5) and Harish Chander (petitioner) came present before the SDM, Fazilka. He further submits that the SDM, Fazilka recommended the name of Jasvir Singh for appointment of Lambardar of the village. He submits that thereafter, the Collector on comparison of the merits of both the candidates found as follows:-

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after analyzing the merits of both the candidates, the Collector appointed Jasvir Singh-respondent No.5 as Lambardar of the Village vide order dated 09.07.2014 (Annexure P-1). He submits that the view taken by the Collector was totally against the facts on record and hence, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner challenged the appointment of Jasvir Singh by way of filing an appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short, ‘the Act’) before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. He submits that the Commissioner also fallen in error in not appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the law settled and thus, illegally declined the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 04.12.2014 (Annexure P-3). He submits that aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the petitioner further challenged the same by way of filing a revision under Section 16 of the Act before the Financial Commissioner, however, the Financial Commissioner also fallen in error in ignoring the evidence on record and the law settled and thus, declined the same vide order dated 14.01.2016 (Annexure P-5). It is further submitted that on comparison of the inter-se merits of both the candidates, it is apparent that the petitioner was younger than respondent No.5. Besides this, the petitioner being son of the deceased Lambardar, had hereditary claim as well. He submits that the petitioner was appointed as Sarbrah Lambardar by the Collector vide order dated 17.11.2003, thus, he remained Sarbrah Lambardar for 10 years and had rich experience of the working on the post of Lambardar. He submits that Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, prescribes factors to be considered for the post of Lambardar. Rule 15