The main legal point established is the requirement for a fair and proper appointment process, including the conduct of Munadi, to provide equal opportunity to all interested candidates for the position of Lambardar.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of order dated 06.12.2017 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, vide which well reasoned order dated 11.04.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar as well as order dated 23.05.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned District Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, have been set aside.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on demise of Inder Singh, earlier Lambardar of village Sachandar (Patti Sidhu), Tehsil and District Amritsar-2, process for appointment of Lambardar was initiated and Mushtri Munadi was effected through Tehsildar in the village after which, Balkar Singh son of Inder Singh, Sartaj Singh son of Inder Singh and Bikramjit Singh son of Balkar Singh filed their applications. He submits that according to the report of Naib Tehsildar, Amritsar-2, Balkar Singh, Sartaj Singh and Bikramjit Singh came present for Lambardari, however, Balkar Singh presented his application that he forgoes his claim for the Lambardari in favour of Bikramjit Singh. Sartaj Singh came present but neither he presented any application for Lambardari nor he ever came present again, thus the only candidate remained in fray was Birkramjit Singh i.e. the petitioner. He has submitted that the Collector appreciated the candidature of Bikramjit Singh and his character verification was done and it was found that deceased Lambardar was the grandfather of Bikramjit Singh who had experience of working as Lambardar and had studied upto 10th class. Besides this, he owned 20 kanals and 15 marlas of land in the village and thus, on the evaluation of his overall antecedents, he was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector vide order dated 23.05.2013. He has submitted that respondent No.4 filed an appeal against the same before the learned Commissioner, however, after hearing both the sides, the learned Commissioner found no illegality in the appointment made by the Collector vide order dated 23.05.2013 and thus, the appeal filed by respondent No.4 was dismissed vide order dated 11.04.2016. He has submitted that aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 filed revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the learned Financial Commissioner, who on hearing both the sides accepted the same vide order dated 06.12.2017 by remanding the case to the District Collector to carry out a fresh proclamation in the village and select the best candidate thereafter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner belongs to a family where his forefathers remained Lambardars of the village. He submits that on the demise of his grandfather, process for the appointment of the Lambardar in the village was initiated and in pursuance to the same, the petitioner also applied for the said post. He submits that in all three applications were received and finally the petitioner only remained in the fray, whose character verification was done and his overall antecedents were appreciated by the Collector and finding him the suitable for the post, he was appointed as Lambardar of the village. He submits that respondent No.4-Kabul Singh filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Commissioner. He submits that thereafter, the learned Financial Commissioner has fallen in error in not appreciating the settled proposition of law. He submits that the choice of the Collector cannot be interfered with in a cavalier manner and as is evident the petitioner was duly appointed by the Collector finding him the most suitable. He submits that the learned Financial Commissioner has fallen in error in accepting the revision filed by respondent No.4 and remanding the case to the Collector. He submits that the learned Financial Commissioner has given undue weightage to the report of the Commissioner stating that the petitioner was not resident of the village