ORDER 1. This revision petition came up before me under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 in limine against the order of Commissioner, Gurgaon Division dated 18.10.2007 and that of Collector, Mewat dated 28.3.2007. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of the respondent as Lambardar of Village Kaliyaka. This order has been confirmed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division. 2. In brief, one post of Lambardar was newly created for Village Kaliyaka in Mewat district. Assistant Collector, IInd Grade recommended the respondent for the post to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, who in turn, recommended the name of the petitioner to the Collector on 6.4.2005. The Collector on .consideration of the merits of the candidates selected the petitioner vide his order dated 6.7.2005. Against this an appeal was filed before the Commissioner who remanded the case back to the Collector on 19.1.2006 to determine whether petitioner had encroached on Panchayat land. The Collector consequently got the matter checked and got the land demarcated on 26.3.2006 and again on 9.6.2006. It was found that the petitioner- SheIjang had encroached upon and illegally taken possession of panchayat land. The petitioner has now filed this case on losing his appeal before the Commissioner on 18.10.2007. Petitioner’s case was heard in limine. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is not in illegal possession of the panchayat land. This argument falls in the face of a specific finding of both Commissioner and Collector. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the possession is not illegal being in self cultivation under panchayat. According to the grounds of petition and the arguments advanced before the Collector the owner of the land has been recorded as panchayat. However, it was no where stated or argued or evidence given that panchayat has authorized their cultivation. In the absence thereof or proof of title, the possession can only be deemed as unauthorized. Collector’s finding has been confirmed by the Collector who got the land demarcated twice who has found the possession illegal. Therefore, the petitioner was not found fit for holding the post of Lambardar. 3. I see no illegality in the impugned orders and hence see no reason to interfere with the said impugned orders of Collector and Commissioner. The petitioner’s claim for being more meritorious than the respondent does not carry any weight in the light of being proved to be in unauthorized possession. 3. I see no illegality in the impugned orders and hence see no reason to interfere with the said impugned orders of Collector and Commissioner. The petitioner’s claim for being more meritorious than the respondent does not carry any weight in the light of being proved to be in unauthorized possession. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly hereby dismissed in limine. Announced. ----------------------