ORDER K.S. Janjua, F.C. - This revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 has been preferred against the orders of Commissioner, Jalandhar (15.4.1996) and District Collector, Jalandhar (14.10.1993) in a lambardari case. 2. Post of Lambardar fell vacant in village Taggar due to death of Gurcachan Singh Lambardar. In response to proclamation these persons including petitioner and respondent applied. Later on third candidate Chuhar Singh withdrew his claim. After considering merits of remaining two candidates name of Atma Singh was recommended by Tehsildar as well SDM. District Collector also found Atma Singh more suitable hence appointed him Lambardar of village Taggar. Appeal filed by the petitioner before Commissioner was dismissed. Hence the instance revision petition. 3. Comparative statement of the qualification of petitioner and respondent is as follows : Mohan Singh (Petitioner) Atma singh (Respondent) Education : 7th Class 12th Class Age : 54 years 41 years Land : 44 Kanals 19 Kanals 12 Marlas Remarks : Remained sarbrah but held guilty of charging excess land revenue 3. Sh. P.N. Aggarwa, Advocate who appeared on behalf of the petitioner argued that the petitioner is a mature and experienced person having 15 years experience as Sarbrah. He owns more land and is an influential person in the village. He remained a member of Gram Panchayat from 1972 to 1983 and President of the Cooperative Agricultural Service Society. He prayed that the revision petition be accepted and impugned orders be set aside. On the other hand respondent was represented by Sh. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate who raised preliminary objection that revision petition was filed on 30.8.1996 but the same was returned to the counsel for the petitioner with certain deficiencies. It was refiled on 2.11.1999 i.e. after a period of more than three years. Moreover, sufficient explanation was not made for such an abnormal delay. He cited Rule 5 (Chapter-I) Volume 5 of High Court Rules/Orders in support of his contention according to which "The Deputy Registrar may return for amendment and refiling within a time not exceeding 10 days at a time and 40 days in the aggregate to be fixed by him any memorandum of appeal for the reason specified in Order 41 Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code". He submitted further that on merits also his client is in no way inferior to petitioner. He submitted further that on merits also his client is in no way inferior to petitioner. He is younger in age, more educated and has been recommended by the lower Revenue Officers. He rebutted claim of petitioner seeking benefit of experience of the post on the ground that the petitioner was held guilty of charging more land revenue from the land owners. It was averred by the counsel for the respondent that a person whose reputation is not above board should not be appointed Lambardar and choice of Collector should be respected. He urged dismissal of revision petition. In reply to the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the petitioner Sh. Aggarwal submitted that the revision petition initially was filed in time but after being returned by the office it remained pending in his office and on account of forgetfulness, inadvertence and oversight he forgot to refile the same. The counsel prayed to condone the delay being not intentional. 4. After consideration of the arguments I am convinced with the arguments of the counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner failed to give any cogent reason for the inordinate delay caused in refiling the revision petition. Apart from this the petitioner could not be given benefit of experience in view of proved allegation that he was collecting excess land revenue while working as Sarbrah. There is nothing against the respondent on record which could debar him from being appointed as Lambardar. In view of settled proposition of law that choice of Collector in Lambardari case should not normally be interfered with especially when it is upheld by the Commissioner unless the Collector has taken a perverse view of the case and has not exercised his choice judiciously. I refrain from interfering with the impugned orders which do not suffer from any illegality. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Announced. Revision dismissed.