ORDER B.K. Srivastava, FC. - This appeal has been filed against order dated 16.5.2002 of Divisional Commissioner, Patiala whereby he set aside appointment of the appellant made by the Collector vide his order dated 11.12.2001. Collector had appointed Nirmal Singh as lambardar of village Panecha, whereas the Commissioner appointed the respondent, Pinderjeet Kaur as lambardar. On the previous date of arguments I asked the counsels to produce respective candidates and today both the candidates are present before me. They were allowed to argue/speak so that I could make a better judgment of their abilities. 2. The respondent, Pinderjeet Kaur is daughter-in-law of the deceased lambardar whose death has caused the vacancy. She has inherited the property of deceased lambardar. She owns 20 killa of land as against mere 2 kanals held at present by the appellant. For general category lambardar, size of land holding is an important consideration. Both the candidates are matriculate. An important objection against the appellant made before the Collector and Commissioner, was regarding his indebtedness which was not properly dealt by the Collector. The Commissioner observed that perusal of the record revealed appellants default in repayment of loans taken from the financial institutions. The Commissioner also observed that his land holding was too small to enable him to clear huge amount of loans raised by him from the different institutions. 3. Respondent produced sale-deeds to show that the appellant has sold most of his land and now he is left with a very marginal land holding instead of two acres as claimed earlier. The appellant personally admitted these sale-deeds before me and he also confirmed that his present land holding is 2 kanals. He said that he had sold the land in order to send his brother and son to Italy. The respondent insisted that the land was sold to repay huge debt of State Bank of India. She states that her son is still in India and it is wrong that he has gone abroad. The appellant before me admitted that his son is in India. The respondent also produced 2 certificate of Coop. Bank Sirhind which reveal that repayment of loan taken by the appellant is in default to the tune of Rs. 20,600 for which legal action was in progress and warrant was likely to be issued. The other certificate reveals default of loan of Rs. The respondent also produced 2 certificate of Coop. Bank Sirhind which reveal that repayment of loan taken by the appellant is in default to the tune of Rs. 20,600 for which legal action was in progress and warrant was likely to be issued. The other certificate reveals default of loan of Rs. 10,806/- of his son Gurpreet Singh for which legal action was in process. Certificate dated 14.7.2005 reveals that appellant had taken loans of Rs. 3,35,000/- from the State Bank/Agriculture Development Bank, Morinda which has since been repaid. One of the sale deeds produced by the respondent and admitted by the appellant reveals that he recently (on 14.7.2005) sold his land for Rs. 3.5 lacs in order to repay his loan. The purpose of repayment of loan has been mentioned specifically at page 2 of the sale-deed. It says that the appellant has already received the cash from the vendee to pay the loan. 4. The above facts vindicate the stand of the Divisional Commissioner and indicate near-insolvency of the appellant. Perusal of the Collectors orders reveals that he did not examine this aspect nor he gave any finding. The Collector passed the order without proper and judicious application of mind. It was rightly set aside by the Commissioner. During the arguments the appellant or his counsel had nothing to offer in their defence. I find that the respondent is an intelligent, sharp and sensible lady and she definitely deserves lambardari of the village which has fallen vacant due to death of his father-in-law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Announced. Appeal dismissed.