JUDGMENT

Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing the order dated 08.09.2010 passed by respondent No.3, order dated 10.12.2013 passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 11.11.2017 passed by respondent No.1.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the death of Suba Singh Lambardar of Village Fatehpur Garhi, Tehsil Rajpura, the post of Lambardar fell vacant and thus, the process for the appointment of new Lambardar was initiated and the proclamation was made in the Village. Two candidates namely, Nek Chand (petitioner) and Gurdeep Singh (respondent No.4) were finally in fray. Their inter se merits were compared and on comparing inter se merits of both, it was found that Nek Chand was the member of Panchayat. His name was supported by 75 persons. On the other hand Gurdeep Singh was found to be 48 years of age and was 8th pass. Learned Collector found respondent No.4-Gurdeep Singh was the elected Sarpanch of the Village. However, on complete analysis of the merits of both the candidates i.e. petitioner Nek Chand and respondent No.4 Gurdeep Singh, he observed that though there was nothing against Nek Chand, yet Gurdeep Singh was a better choice and was younger in age, more educated and popular and thus, Gurdeep Singh was appointed as the Lambardar by the District Collector vide impugned order dated 08.09.2010. He submits that petitioner challenged the same by way of filing the appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act before learned Commissioner, Patiala. Learned Commissioner however, after hearing both the sides and comparing the record, declined the appeal filed vide his order dated 09.08.2012. Petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP-21145-2010 but the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2012. Aggrieved by the same petitioner filed LPA No.67 of 2013 which was disposed of by this Court by directing the Commissioner Patiala to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law vide its order dated 06.05.2013. Resultantly, learned Divisional Commissioner, Patiala heard the case afresh however, after hearing both the sides, he dismissed the appeal vide his impugned order dated 10.12.2013. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed the revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the learned Financial Commissioner but learned Financial Commissioner found no merit in the revision filed and thus, dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 11.12.2017 and thus, upheld the decision of the Collector and that of the Commissioner. He has relied upon the judgments titled as Sukhjinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2016 (3) RCR (Civil) 725 and Naib Singh v. Financial Commissioner Haryana and others, 2020 (3) PLR 301.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the inter se merits of both the petitioner and that of the respondent No.4 which are as follows:-

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is evident that the petitioner was 37 years of age whereas, respondent No.4 was 48 years of age and thus, admittedly the petitioner was younger in age. Besides this, petitioner owned 32 kanals of land whereas, respondent Gurdeep Singh had only 13 Kanals of land in the Village. He submits that learned Collector, learned Appellate and Revisional Authority have failed to appreciate that