ORDER B.K. Srivastava, FC. -This is set of two appeals ROR No. 90 of 2002 and ROA No. 7 of 2002 filed in connection with appointment of Lambardar of village Bandhlehri, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib. The District Collector, Ropar appointed Vinod Kumar as Lambardar but the Commissioner, Patiala Division set aside this order and appointed Satpal as Lambardar by accepting his appeal and rejecting the appeal of Arun Kumar. Arun Kumar has filed the revision petition ROR No. 90/2002 while Vinod Kumar has filed the appeal ROC No. 7/2002. 2. Arun Kumar is employed in the Civil Sectt. Chandigarh. As Chandigarh is too far from the village Bandlehri which is located in Sub Tehsil, Nangal he cannot be considered fit for the appointment. 3. The main consideration before me is between Vinod Kumar who was appointed by the Collector and Satpal who has been appointed by the Divisional Commissioner. I prefer Vinod Kumar due to the following reasons :- (i) He has more land, 7 acres, as compared to 3-1/2 acres of Satpal. (ii) He is M.Phil. as compared to graduate qualification of Satpal. (iii) Satpal was nominated as a member of the Municipal Council, Nangal and later he also fought election as Municipal Councilor in Nangal. He was also President of the Fruit Merchants Association, Nangal. He is a commission agent at Nangal. Sat Pal is deeply committed with the affairs of Municipal Committee, Nangal and it surely reduces considerably his involvement with and commitment to the affairs in the native village which is admittedly at distance about 8 Kms. from Nangal. There is good evidence to prove that Satpal resides at Nangal with his family. It is another thing that he also has his house in the village as well. 4. Vinod Kumar is exceptionally qualified. He is young, aged 33 years and he resides in the village. Tehsildar had ignored him because he was too young and still studying. I think differently - why not prefer an M. Phil. candidate who is young, son of deceased Lambardar and belongs to the majority community of the village. He is Khatri and Khastris have the largest population in the village - 94 families where as the respondent Satapal belongs to Jheur caste which has only 6 families in the village. 5. There is an allegation that Vinod Kumar is in unauthorised occupation of school ground. He is Khatri and Khastris have the largest population in the village - 94 families where as the respondent Satapal belongs to Jheur caste which has only 6 families in the village. 5. There is an allegation that Vinod Kumar is in unauthorised occupation of school ground. Actually this land was donated by his forefathers and it is neither a government land nor a shamlat land. He has submitted certificate of Patwari dated 12.12.2001 which is attached at Annexure P-4/A in which it is written that he is not in possession of any government land. Thus, I find that Commissioner did not have sufficient evidence before him to rely upon the allegation of encroachment made against him by Satpal. Bhupinder Nath, the father of the appellant had given a categorical affidavit 17.11.97 which was also entered in Roznamcha Waqiati dated 2.12.97 declaring that he was not in possession of any government/panchayat land and that if there was any such entry in his name, he relinquished his interest/rights in favour of the Panchayat. A report dated 22.5.96 of Kanungo at page 1997-98 of Collectors file says that father of the petitioner, Bhupinder Nath was in possession of 0-2M land in khasra No. 52 but it is not mentioned that this khasra No. belongs to government or Panchayat. There is no jamabandi to this effect. 6. In view of the above observations, the appeal of Vinod Kumar is accepted and that of Arun Kumar is dismissed. Announced. Appeal dismissed.