ORDER V.N. Ojha, FC. - This is a review petition under Section 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 22.12.2000 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner Appeals-III in Lambardari of village Tafzalpura, Tehsil and District Patiala. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on the death of Karnail Singh Lambardar of village Tafzalpura, the Naib Tehsildar, Patiala invited applications through proclamation in the village to fill up the post of Lambardar. In response to the proclamation, Jaswant Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Gurmej Singh sons of Karnail Singh (deceased Lambardar) submitted their applications. The character of all the candidates were got verified from the police and the candidature of all the candidates was found suitable for the post of Lambardar. The Naib Tehsildar, Patiala recommended the name of Jaswant Singh for appointment as Lambardar. The Tehsildar, Patiala disagreed with the recommendation of Naib Tehsildar and recommended the name of Gurdeep Singh. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade (S.D.M.) Patiala recommended the name of Jaswant Singh. After considering the merits and de-merits of the case, the District Collector, Patiala vide his order dated 18.6.1997 appointed Jaswant Singh as Lambardar of village Tafzalpura in place of Karnail Singh (deceased Lambardar). Against this order, Gurdeep Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala who dismissed the same vide his order date 15.3.1999. Against this order, Gurdeep Singh filed revision petition before this court. 3. The learned Financial Commissioner Appeals-II vide order dated 22.12.2000 accepted the appeal and appointed Gurdeep Singh as Lambardar by setting aside the order of the District Collector as well as Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. Hence the present application by the respondent-applicant Jaswant Singh for review of the order of my learned predecessor. 4. The notice was issued to the petitioner Gurdeep Singh on the application for review. Shri R.S. Chauhan Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The main ground taken in the application is that the petitioner in connivance with the lower revenue staff had procured wrong and false report regarding service of summons whereas no summon was received by the respondent-applicant. The petitioner is not residing in the village. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade in his report specifically mentioned that Gurdeep Singh is not a resident of village Tafzalpura. He recommended the name of Jaswant Singh. Ex-parte orders have been obtained by Gurdeep Singh by playing fraud. The petitioner is not residing in the village. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade in his report specifically mentioned that Gurdeep Singh is not a resident of village Tafzalpura. He recommended the name of Jaswant Singh. Ex-parte orders have been obtained by Gurdeep Singh by playing fraud. An enquiry in this regard was also conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala who submitted a detailed report establishing that the summons issued by the Court of Financial Commissioner were not served upon Jaswant Singh in connivance with the lower revenue staff by Gurdeep Singh. On this score the order of my learned predecessor has been reviewed for fresh decision on merits. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Gurdeep Singh contended that the petitioner studied upto Matric whereas Jaswant Singh is illiterate. The petitioner owns 16 Kanals land whereas Jaswant Singh owns 1 Kanal 16 Marlas land. The petitioner is 45 years of age whereas Jaswant Singh is 41 years of age. The petitioner has much influence in locality as he owns truck. Both are the sons of deceased Lambardar Karnail Singh. Jaswant Singh was once arrested under Section 107/151 Criminal Procedure Code on the complaint of fourth brother Kulwant Singh. Most of the people of village wanted to appoint Gurdeep Singh as Lambardar. The learned counsel for petitioner prayed that the petitioner being meritorious was appointed as Lambardar of village Tafzalpura by the Financial Commissioner Appeals-II. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent-applicant argued that Gurdeep Singh is not resident of village Tafzalpura. He is residing in Gurbax Colony. In support of his claim, voter list alongwith relevant page of telephone directory showing the name of Gurdeep Singh as resident of Gurbax Colony has been placed on record. As per report of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Gurdeep Singh owns no land in village Tafzalpura. The land which he holds in village Tafzalpura is Gair-mumkin which is all constructed area. The lower revenue officers recommended the name of respondent-applicant for appointment as Lambardar because he is younger in age than Gurdeep Singh. He had assisted his father in the work of Lambardari, he owns 1 Kanal 16 Marlas land in the village. Learned counsel further stated that the respondent-applicant has land in other village and he owns a truck which gives sufficient income. He is the President of Sudhar Sabha of Tafzalpura. He had assisted his father in the work of Lambardari, he owns 1 Kanal 16 Marlas land in the village. Learned counsel further stated that the respondent-applicant has land in other village and he owns a truck which gives sufficient income. He is the President of Sudhar Sabha of Tafzalpura. So far as the case under Section 107/151 Criminal Procedure Code is concerned, he was discharged honourably in that case. The enquiry conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Patiala regarding service of summons upon the respondent-applicant clearly shows the conduct of Gurdeep Singh petitioner. He prayed that the respondent-applicant is a better candidate than Gurdeep Singh, whose conduct stands established by the officers as stagmatic. The choice of Collector cannot be disturbed unless and until there is patent error of fact found by higher authorities. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the both the parties and gone through the lower courts files alongwith other papers placed on record. As per report of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gurdeep Singh has no land in the village as per documents tendered by the learned counsel for the respondent-appellant as well as report of lower revenue officers, Gurdeep Singh is not resident of village Tafzalpura. Jaswant Singh applicant is a permanent resident of the village, owns land in the village and young in age. The lower revenue officers recommended his name for appointment as Lambardar. The Collector after considering merits and de-merits, found Jaswant Singh as the better candidate and appointed him as Lambardar of village Tafzalpura in place of his father Karnail Singh (deceased Lambardar). He had assisted his father in the work Lambardari as per the order of Assistant Collector IInd Grade. He is well conversant with the work of Lambardari. It is settled law that in normal cases, the choice of District Collector is final and should not be disturbed. I find no infirmity in the order passed by the District Collector, Patiala regarding appointment of Jaswant Singh as Lambardar of village Tafzalpura, Tehsil and District Patiala. Accordingly, the review application is accepted and the revision petition filed by Gurdeep Singh is dismissed. Announced. Revision dismissed.