JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J.:- Aggrieved by the order dated 3.2.2005, passed by the District Collector, Jalandhar, which has been affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Government of Punjab, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 2. After the death of Thakar Singh, Lambardar, Naib Tehsildar, Goraya, initiated proceeding to fill up the said vacancy. Accordingly, public announcement was made in the village. Out of several persons who applied, the petitioner and respondent No.4 herein alone were considered by the Collector Jalandhar, third respondent herein. According to the petitioner, he is aged about 45 years, passed matriculation and having 14 kanals 2 marlas of land. On the other hand, fourth respondent, Avtar Singh, is also aged about 45 years. He passed middle class and is having six fields land. The District Collector perused the details furnished. He enquired both of them i.e. petitioner and respondent No.4 and also heard their counsel. The case of Avtar Singh (respondent No.4) was recommended by the Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Magistrate. He is also having property and his income was considered sufficient. According to the Collector, the petitioner is not living in the village. On the other hand, fourth respondent is a resident of the same village. The Collector after reiterating that as per the Land Revenue Act, the Lambardar should be of the same village where he is to be appointed in order to help the people in the village and finding that among the two, Avtar Singh, respondent No.4, is meritorious and proper candidate, appointed him as new Lambardar of village Kala, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar. 3. Questioning the order of the District Collector appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar. The Commissioner once again considered the claim of both the parties, perused the grounds and also heard the arguments of counsel for the parties. After agreeing with the conclusion of the District Collector and finding that neither the conclusion was perverse nor contrary to rules, and the fact that respondent No.4 is financially sound and above all he is available in the village throughout the day and night, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Collector. 4. Not satisfied with the order of the Commissioner, the petitioner herein preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commission, first respondent herein. 4. Not satisfied with the order of the Commissioner, the petitioner herein preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commission, first respondent herein. The Financial Commissioner like the other authorities, perused the relevant materials as well as the orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner (Appeals) and after finding that the petitioner is not a resident of the village and stayed out of the village and visiting once in four days only, concurred with the selection made by the District Collector and affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and consequently dismissed the revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same contentions raised before all the three authorities. We verified the claim and details of the petitioner as well as respondent No.4. It is clear from the factual conclusion that the petitioner herein is not a resident of the village in question. On the other hand, the fourth respondent is residing in the same village and as rightly observed by the authorities, he will be beneficial to the village concerned. In such circumstances and in view of the concurrent factual conclusion arrived at by all the three authorities, we are unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, we are in agreement with the decision of the Collector as well as the other two authorities. Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. ——————————————