JUDGMENT

Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order dated 03.08.2016 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.1 vide which order dated 16.05.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Commissioner Roop Nagar Division, Roop Nagar was wrongly and illegally upheld along with order dated 23.04.2010 (Anneuxre P-3) passed by learned District Collector, SAS Nagar, Mohali vide which respondent No.4 was appointed as Lambardar of Village Rangian, Tehsil Kharar and District SAS Nagar, Mohali thereby ignoring the recommendations of the lower revenue officials and Tehsildar Kharar as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum- Assistant Collector Grade I, Kharar.

2. Adumbrated facts of the case are that on the death of earlier Lambardar namely, Baldev Sahaye on 27.08.2008, the process for the appointment of new Lambardar was initiated. The proclamation was made for inviting the applications from the eligible candidates. In pursuance to the same, three applications from the three candidates namely, Harbachan Lal (petitioner), Satpal and Hari Om (respondent No.4) were received. The scrutiny of their applications were carried out and their antecedents were verified. On verification of the same, it was found that petitioner Harbachan Lal was 57 years of age and was 8th class pass. Besides this, he owned 20 kanals and 09 marlas of land in the village. So far respondent No.4 is concerned, he was found to be 47 years of age and was post-graduate having degree of MA(Economics). Besides this, he owned 23 kanals 19 marlas of land in the village. He had impeccable record and participated in the N.S.S. Camps. Learned Collector on complete analysis of inter se merits of all the candidates in the fray found respondent No.4 to be more suitable and thus, appointed him as new Lambardar vide his order dated 23.04.2010. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. Learned Appellate Court heard both the sides and perused the record and finding no merit in the appeal, dismissed the same vide his order dated 16.05.2016. Petitioner assailed the said order by filing the revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh. Learned Financial Commissioner heard both the sides and perused the record. However, finding no merit in the revision, also dismissed the same vide order dated 03.08.2016. Hence, petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the respondents-authorities have failed to appreciate the evidence on record and thus, fallen in error in drawing the conclusion of appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the Village. He submits that the Assistant Collector Grade II, Kharar had recommended the name of petitioner and thus, had sent his recommendation to Assistant Collector Grade I, Kharar who agreed with the report of Assistant Collector Grade II and thus, recommended the name of petitioner to be appointed as the Lambardar. He has submitted that the grand-father (Surat Ram) of petitioner had remained Sarbrah Lambardar. He has further submitted that petitioner is a social worker as he takes keen interest in the public welfare works. It is submitted that respondent No.4 was a defaulter in payment of the government revenue on the date of appointment as he refused to deposit the chowkidara and this fact was reported by Jagtar Singh Chowkidar of Village Rangian to Tehsildar Kharar and thus, he could not have been appointed as Lambardar. He submits that the i