JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - Harmanjit Singh, petitioner, has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the order dated 15.5.2000 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, vide which the orders dated 18.6.1999 and 5.10.1999 passed by the District Collector, Nawanshahr and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, respectively, in favour of the petitioner appointing him as a Lambardar of village Barnala Kalan (Patti Paskan), have been set aside. 2. In the instant case, the issue of Lambardari of village Barnala Kalan (Patti Paskan) is in question. The post of Lambardar of the said village became vacant on 25.4.19998 due to the death of Kartar Singh, Lambardar of the village. Vide order dated 6.7.1998, the District Collector allowed the proceedings to be taken for filling up the vacancy of the post of Lambardar of village Barnala Kalan (Patti Paskan). The aforesaid post of Lambardari pertains to Patti Paskan of the aforesaid village. In pursuance of the above five persons applied for the said post including the petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 (Hari Singh). The Naib Tehsildar and the Tehsildar vide their orders dated 24.12.1998 and 29.1.1999 recommended the name of the petitioner for the aforesaid post of Lambardar. However, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawanshahr recommended the name of respondent No. 2 for appointment of the aforesaid post vide his order dated 9.2.1999. 3. The aforesaid recommendations were considered by the District Collector, Nawanshahr and vide his order dated 18.6.1999, he appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of village Barnala Kalan by recording the following reasons :- "Candidate Harjinder Singh and Makhan Singh are only 7/8th class passed and candidate Harmanjit Singh and Shri Hari Singh are more qualified than those both candidates. Therefore, for the post of Lambardar, Sh. Harmanjit Singh and Sh. Hari Singh are better candidates than other candidates Harjinder Singh and Makhan Singh. Candidate Sh. Harmanjit Singh son of Shri Sarup Singh is more qualified than the other candidate Hari Singh for the post of Lambardari. Candidate Harmanjit Singh is B.A. pass and candidate Sh. Hari Singh is only Matric pass. The age of candidate Harmanjit Singh is 39 years and the age of candidate Sh. Hari Singh is 51 years. Candidate Sh. Harmanjit Singh son of Shri Sarup Singh is more qualified than the other candidate Hari Singh for the post of Lambardari. Candidate Harmanjit Singh is B.A. pass and candidate Sh. Hari Singh is only Matric pass. The age of candidate Harmanjit Singh is 39 years and the age of candidate Sh. Hari Singh is 51 years. Shri Harmanjit Singh owns 5K-5M land and his father also owns 13 acres land in the village. Out of this land he is also entitled for the share. The land of Shri Hari Singh is 36K-8M. Therefore, Shri Harmanjit Singh has owns more and including the land of share of his father, than Hari Singh. Candidate Harmanjit Singh is ex-member Panchayat. He was member of Agriculture Co-op. Society. He is social worker, B.A. pass and is a young man. His financial position is also sound. I agree with the report of Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar, Nawanshahr. Therefore, the candidate Harmanjit Singh son of Sarup Singh, resident of village Barnala Kalan, Tehsil and Distt. Nawanshahr is hereby ordered to be appointed as Lambardar in place of deceased Lambardar Sh. Kartar Singh." 4. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The said appeal filed by respondent No. 2 was dismissed by the learned Commissioner vide his order dated 5.10.1999, while observing that in the matter of appointment of Lambardar the view taken by the Collector has to be upheld unless there is some serious defect in the same. He has also observed that the petitioner belongs to a respectable family and is a social worker and he is more qualified that respondent No. 2. It was also observed by the learned Commissioner that respondent No. 2 wants to settle in New Zealand because his two children are living abroad. Therefore, he was not found fit to be appointed as Lambardar of the village. 5. Still feeling dissatisfied, respondent No. 2 filed revision petition against the aforesaid orders of the District Collector as well as the Commissioner before the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab. The said revision petition was allowed and the orders dated 18.6.1999 and 15.10.1999 passed by the District Collector, Nawanshahr and Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, were set aside. 5. Still feeling dissatisfied, respondent No. 2 filed revision petition against the aforesaid orders of the District Collector as well as the Commissioner before the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab. The said revision petition was allowed and the orders dated 18.6.1999 and 15.10.1999 passed by the District Collector, Nawanshahr and Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, were set aside. While setting aside these two orders, the learned Financial Commissioner recorded two reasons; firstly, that the Lambardari in question pertains to Patti Paskan and the petitioner did not own any land in the said Patti, whereas on the other hand respondent No. 2 is owning 36 Kanalas 8 Marlas of land in the said Patti. It was further observed that though it is not a key consideration for appointment of a Lambardar of a Patti that he should own land in the said Patti, but normally to assess the suitability of a candidate, if a person who owns land in a particular Patti is available, then the said person should be given preference to the other person/candidate who is having no land in the said Patti. While observing that, it was found that the petitioner is owning no land in the Patti Paskan. The claim of the petitioner that during the pendency of the proceedings for appointment of Lambardar, he acquired 5 Marlas of land from his mother, was found to be a sham transaction. It was held that by the alleged purchase, he has not improved his qualification for appointment on the said post. Secondly, it was observed by the learned Financial Commissioner that the conduct of the petitioner is not up to the mark and he is not suitable for being appointed as Lambardar. In this regard, the learned Financial Commissioner has observed that the conduct of the petitioner in alleging so called purchase of 5 Marlas of land from his mother raises a doubt about his integrity, and a prospective candidate as Lambardar should conduct himself with dignity and authority. He should not have entered into the shame transactions. 6. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner. 7. The first contention of the petitioner is that the choice of the Collector is final as regards the appointment of the post of Lambardar is concerned. He should not have entered into the shame transactions. 6. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner. 7. The first contention of the petitioner is that the choice of the Collector is final as regards the appointment of the post of Lambardar is concerned. Normally, the choice of the Collector confirmed by the Commissioner should not be interfered by the learned Financial Commissioner except when the candidate so appointed is not qualified to be appointed on the post of Lambardar. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for appointment on the post of Lambardar of a particular Patti, it is not essential that the candidate must own and possess the land in the same Patti. According to him, Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1909 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) provides for the matters to be considered in the first appointment of the Lambardar. Sub-rule (b) of Rule 15 provides the extent of property by a candidate in the estate. The word estate in clause (b) of Rule 15 has to mean the village and not the Patti of the village. Therefore, the only requirement as per this Rule is that a candidate must possess the property/land in the said village. In this case the petitioner is possessing 5 Kanals 5 Marlas land in village Barnala Kalan, therefore, he cannot be said that he is not possessing any land in the estate. There may be different Pattis in a estate/village. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Financial Commissioner while upsetting the orders passed by the Collector as well as the Commissioner is wholly erroneous. Thirdly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only object to see the extent of property possessed by a candidate in an estate was to secure the payment of land revenue collected by the Lambardar but since in the State of Punjab the land revenue has been waived of, therefore, now the possessing of the property to some extent by a candidate is not relevant. Therefore, the learned Financial Commissioner should not have set aside the orders of the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar of the village passed in his favour by the Collector as well as the Commissioner. 8. Therefore, the learned Financial Commissioner should not have set aside the orders of the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar of the village passed in his favour by the Collector as well as the Commissioner. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that it is mandatory for a person to own the land in Patti in order to be appointed as Lambardar of that Patti. If a suitable candidate owning land in a particular Patti is available then the revenue authorities should not appoint a person as Lambardar who does not own and possess some land in that Patti. He submitted that although there is no bar on such appointment but this requirement under Rule 15(b) of the Rules must be read with Rule 16(i)(c) of the Rules. Rule 16(i)(c) of the Rules provides as under :- "Rule 16 :- (i) A headman shall be dismissed when - xx xx xx xx (c) in any other estate he ceases to be a land-owner in the estate or sub- division of the estate in respect which he holds office......" 9. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that both the provisions must be re conciled. If a candidate who does not have land in the Patti to which Lambardar belongs can be appointed as Lambardar of that Patti as there is no bar on such appointment. But such an appointment immediately attracts action under Rule 16(i)(c) of the Rules which renders such appointment as invalid. In support of his contention, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 placed reliance upon a decision given by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab in Harjanak Singh v. Jagdev Singh, 2001(1) RCR(Civil) 359. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further relies upon a decision given by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab in Harnam Singh v. Jagat Singh, 1953 Lahore Law Times 1, wherein it was held that qualification of holding land in the Patti or Taraf for which the Lambardar is to be appointed, is absolute even in respect of those Pattis in which the land owners are not descended from a common ancestor as the qualification is conducive to better knowledge of the Patti and its owners and cultivators. Similarly in Parnam Singh and others v. Ganda Ram, 1964 PLJ 141, the Financial Commissioner, Punjab has held that Land Revenue Rule 16(i)(c) read with Rule 15(b) is quite clear on the point that the qualification of holding land in the Patti or Taraf for which the Lambardar is appointed is absolute. In this judgment, the view taken by the Financial Commissioner in Jagan Nath v. Dewa Singh, 1934 Lahore Law Times 47, was affirmed. In Dalip Singh v. Deva Singh, 1986 Recent Revenue Reports 205, the Financial Commissioner, Haryana has also held that the ownership of the land in a particular patti or revenue estate is essential for appointment on the post of Lambardar of the said Patti. In Jaswant Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh and others, 1988(2) Recent Revenue Reports 461, the Financial Commissioner, Haryana has held that the candidate must hold land in Patti or Taraf for which Lambardar is to be appointed. Since in that case the appellant was not holding any land in Patti, therefore, it was held that the choice of the Collector was rightly set aside by the Commissioner. Similar view was taken in Kuljinder Singh v. Manjit Singh, 1999(1) PLJ 474 by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana wherein it was held that for appointment of Lambardar of a particular Patti, it is essential that the candidate must possess the land in the said Patti. 10. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that in view of the consistent view taken by the Financial Commissioners of both the States from 1987 to 2001, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Financial Commissioner by following the same consistent view. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further submitted that not only that respondent No. 2 is possessing 36 Kanals 8 Marlas of land in the same Patti but he also possesses 16 years experience of Sarbarah Lambardar of the village. In this regard, he has referred to the order dated 9.2.1999 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawanshahr (Annexure A-1), wherein it has been specifically mentioned that respondent No. 2 remained Sarbarah Lambardar for 15-16 years and he is having a lot of experience of the duties of Lambardar. 11. In this regard, he has referred to the order dated 9.2.1999 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawanshahr (Annexure A-1), wherein it has been specifically mentioned that respondent No. 2 remained Sarbarah Lambardar for 15-16 years and he is having a lot of experience of the duties of Lambardar. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner is legal and justified and the same should not be interfered by this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. After considering the various contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner does not require any interference. It is well settled that this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India should not interfere in the matter pertaining to the appointment of Lambardar particularly when the revenue authorities under the Act have come to a particular conclusion about the appointment of Lambardar keeping in view the consistent view taken by those authorities. The interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would only be warranted if there is patent error leading to failure of justice or violation of law or when the authority has acted beyond its jurisdiction. After perusing the various orders available on the record, it is clear that both the candidates are having the almost equal qualifications but as far as the land is concerned, respondent No. 2 is possessing 336 Kanals 8 Marlas of land in the Patti whereas the petitioner is owning no land in the Patti, as per the report of the Patwari (Annexure A-5) on the record. Similarly, respondent No. 2 is having 15 years experience of Sarbarah Lambardar. On the other hand, the petitioner is more educated. In these circumstances, if the Financial Commissioner after considering the various orders passed by the revenue authorities below has deemed it fit to appoint respondent No. 2 as Lambardar, the said order should not be interfered in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. On the other hand, the petitioner is more educated. In these circumstances, if the Financial Commissioner after considering the various orders passed by the revenue authorities below has deemed it fit to appoint respondent No. 2 as Lambardar, the said order should not be interfered in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. Even otherwise, I find no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Financial Commissioner to the effect that if a candidate, who is having land in the same Patti for which the Lambardar is to be appointed, should be given preference to a person who is having no land in the said Patti. In this regard, the learned Financial Commissioner has followed the consistent view taken by that Court from 1937 to 2001 in the judgments referred to above. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.