JUDGMENT

Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the orders dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Financial Commissioner; order dated 19.03.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Commissioner and also order dated 21.09.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned District Collector, Palwal vide which respondent No.2 was appointed as Lambardar of the Village Patti Khail District Palwal without appreciating the merits of the case.

2. Adumbrated facts of the case are that on the death of earlier Lambardar, namely, Parmanand Kalra of Village Patti Khail, the process for the appointment of new Lambardar was initiated. The mustri munadi was conducted and in pursuance to the same, four applications were received from the candidates namely, Rajesh Kathuria son of Jagdish, Rajender son of Roop Singh, Mukesh Kumar (petitioner) son of Tejan Singh and Laxman Singh (respondent No.2) son of Sohan Lal. After scrutiny of their applications, their antecedents were verified. Petitioner was found to be 32 years of age and was Graduate. Besides this, he was pursuing his LLB. Course as well. He was found to have been owning 04 acres of land. So far respondent No.2 Laxman Singh is concerned, he was found to be matric pass. He owned 01 acre of land. On analysis of their inter se merits, the Collector found respondent No.2 to be the most suitable candidate among the other candidates and thus, appointed him as Lambardar of the Village vide order dated 21.09.2011. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner and other co-applicant namely, Rajender filed appeals under Section 18 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act before the learned Commissioner, Gurgaon Division Gurgaon. Learned Appellate Court after hearing both the sides, finding no merit in both the appeals dismissed the same vide his order dated 19.03.2013 and thus, upheld the order passed by the Collector dated 21.09.2011. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed the revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act before the learned Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh. However, learned Financial Commissioner after hearing both the sides and perusing the record, finding no merit in the revision, dismissed the same and thus, the order passed by the learned Collector and that by the Commissioner were upheld by the learned Financial Commissioner. Hence, aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the learned Collector and thereafter, the Appellate and Revisional Authorities have miserably failed in appreciating the evidence on record and the law settled and thus, have drawn a wrong conclusion in appointing respondent No.2 as Lambardar of the Village and thus, illegally rejected the candidature of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner being 32 years of age was younger in age than the respondent. Besides this, at the time of appointment, he was graduate and was pursuing his LL.B course. Thus, obviously he was more qualified than respondent No.2. He submits that petitioner owned more land than respondent No.2. Thus, petitioner was much more meritorious than respondent No.2. It is submitted that respondent had faced prosecution in one FIR. He submits that the petitioner had committed no encroachment on the Panchyat land but the same has not been appreciated by the respondents-authorities. It is submitted that the petitioner being younger in age and being more qualified was the most deserving candidate and thus, the view taken by the respondents-authorities in appointing respondent No.2 as Lambardar is totally unsustainable in the eyes of law and