JUDGMENT Attar Singh, F. O.— Shri Amar Chand has assailed the order, dated 19-6-1986 of the Ld, Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division in two separate petitions. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that post of Lambardar of Mauza Majhog Samluhi fell vacant owing to death of Sh. Prabh Dayal, Lambardar who died on 23-2-1981. The Patwari Halqua informed the Tehsildar about the death of the Larabardar who, in turn, issued a proclamation inviting therein applications for the appointment of Lambardar before 15-6-1981 and this fact finds mention in RAPAT ROZNAMCHA of the Halqua Patwari at serial No. 374, dated 8-6-1981 There were five contenders for the post of Lambardar i. e. petitioner and the four respondents. Shri Suresh Chand is the first who filed his application on 26-5-1981 and respondent No. 1 Kishan Dass filed application on 12-6-1981, while Kishore Chand, respondent No. 2 filed his application on 3-7-1981 and Jagdish Raj, respondent No. 4 on 7-7-1981. Petitioner Amar Chand filed his application on 23-6-1981 while these applications as per proclamation should have been made before 15-6-1981 After verifying the extent of land holdings, educational qualifications, age, ability and influence in the village of each contender, the Tehsildar, forwarded their cases to the District Collector, Hamirpur through the Sub-Divisional C Hector, The District Collector after hearin the interested persons and considering all the essential factors appointed the petitioner as Lambardar vide his order, dated 24-3-1983. S/Shri Kishan Dass and Suresh Chand, responients challenged this order of the District Collector before the Ld. Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division in two separate appeals. The Ld Commissioner, Kangra Division accepted the appeal and rescinded the order of the District Collector and remanded he case to him directing him that the Tehsildar should notify a definite date by which the desirous persons should make their applications for appointment of Lambardar it was also held by him that all the present applicants should be deemed to have applied for within time The petitioner has, therefore, assailed the order of the Ld. Divisional Commissioner in these two revision petitions 3. I have heard the parties and perused the court recorded. Since the petitioner failed to file application within the notified period, therefore, he has no claim what-so ever to assail the order. During the course of hearing he could not satisfy me as to under what circumstances his application for the post of Lambardar deserves consideration. I have heard the parties and perused the court recorded. Since the petitioner failed to file application within the notified period, therefore, he has no claim what-so ever to assail the order. During the course of hearing he could not satisfy me as to under what circumstances his application for the post of Lambardar deserves consideration. As per para 323 of the Land Administration Mannual the Tehsildar is required to report the vacancy to the Collector, of the District through the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade without delay and under para 323-A on receipt of this report of the Tehsildar, the Collector shall have to fix a date for the decision of the case notifying the same to all the claimants and have the date proclaimed in the estate concerned. In this case it appears that although the date fixed for hearing was notified to the claimant yet the same was not proclaimed in the estate concerned. In view of this fact, I find that the order of the Collector regarding appointment of Lambardar suffers from legal defect and requires to be set aside ad case remanded to him with the directions that he should fix up the date for hearing and shall notify the same to the claimants and also make its proclamation in the estate concerned. Since there is defect in the order of the Collector the matter has to be looked into by him afresh, therefore, the other points raised by the petitioner do not require consideration at this stage. The order of the Ld. Commissioner directing the Tehsildar to notify the date afresh is, therefore, modified because of the fact that para 323-A requires the Collector to make proclamation in the estate concerned about the date of hearing and not the Tehsildar as has been observed by the Ld. Commissioner. With these observations the petitions are disposed of. Announced. Order accordingly.