ORDER Geetika Kalha, F.C.- The present is a revision petition filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 11.6.2003 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and order dated 27.8.2002 passed by the District Collector, Jalandhar. 2. The brief facts of the case are, that, to fill up a vacancy of a Lambardar in village Dalla, Tehsil Jalandhar-II, District Jalandhar, which was caused with the death of previous Lambardar Jalaur Singh, a proclamation was made in the village inviting applications from the desirous candidates and in reply nine candidates, including the petitioner and respondents, had submitted their applications. After considering claims and counter claims, the Naib Tehsildar, Bhogpur, recommended the name of Jaswant Singh S/o Naranjan Singh. The Tehsildar and SDM Jalmldhar-II also endorsed the recommendation of Naib Tehsildar and recommended the name of Jaswant Singh S/o Naranjan Singh to the District Collector, Jalandhar. However, after considering the merits and . demerits of the candidates, the District Collector. Jalandhar, vide his order dated 27.8.2002, appointed Jarnail Singh S/o Lachhman Singh as a new Lambardar of village Dalla, Tehsil Jalandhar-II. The District Collector also held that Jaswant Singh S/o Naranjan Singh was very old and was not a fit candidate for appointment as Lambardar. The District Collector further held that Jarnail Singh was most suitable candidate for appointment as Lambardar being younger in age and well qualified than that of Mohinder Singh. Aggrieved by this order, Jaswant Singh S/o Naranjan Singh and Mohinder Singh S/o Harnam Singh filed two separate appeals before Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. Jaswant Singh had taken the plea that he was simply ignored on the basis of old age whereas no age was prescribed for the post of Lambardar that his name was recommended by all the lower revenue officers; he had a lot of experience in revenue administration as he had been working in Revenue Department. On the other side, Mohinder Singh argued that he had served the Nation through Indian Navy for 11 years and thereafter worked with Bhakra Beas Management Board; he was an income tax payee and a pensioner too. But the Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, after thorough examination of the case, vide his detailed and self speaking order dated 11.6.2003, dismissed both the appeals and upheld the order dated 27.8.2002 passed by the District Collector, Jalandhar. 3. But the Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, after thorough examination of the case, vide his detailed and self speaking order dated 11.6.2003, dismissed both the appeals and upheld the order dated 27.8.2002 passed by the District Collector, Jalandhar. 3. Still aggrieved by this order, Mohinder Singh has filed the present revision petition on the grounds stated therein. 4. Notice was issued to the respondents. Only respondent NO.1 (Jarnail Singh) appeared. Respondent NO.2 and 3 were served but they did not appear in the court as such they were proceeded against ex-parte. 5. I have heard the counsels for both the parties and also gone through the record. The District Collector is empowered by rule 15 of the Land Revenue Rules to appoint the Lambardar and an appeal to the Commissioner of the Division or a revision petition to the Financial Commissioner can only lie against the orders of District Collector in case he has committed certain serious irregularity, ignored certain vital facts relevant to the case or committed any illegality, which the petitioner has not been able to show, either in his appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, or in this petition. 6. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the orders of the District Collector, Jalandhar as well as orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. As this petition is without merit so I hereby dismiss the same. Announced. Petition dismissed. ————————