ORDER 1. The instant revision petition has been filed under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 to set aside the order dated 18/9/2007 passed by Ld. Commissioner, Hissar where by he set aside order dated 12.04.2007 of Ld. District Collector, Fatehabad. 2. Briefly the facts of this case are that with formal approval of Commissioner, Hisar vide his order Endst No. 23-22/F/EA/Code-I/3583 dated 23.03.2005, the general category post of Lambardar of village Dher was created. To fill up this post Naib­Tehsildar, Jakhal conducted munadi on 4.04.2006 and its Roznamcha report was entered against No. 326 dated 6.04.2006. 12 person, submitted applications. Out of these, 8 applicants withdrew from the array of contesting. There remained 4 contesting applicants namely Sh. Iqbal Singh, Gurdial Singh, Avtar Singh and Sh. Balwinder. Character antecedents were got verified from police. Three were found fit and one of these four vis-a-vis. Regarding Sh. Gurdial Sjngh, it was reported that FIR No. 228 dated 10.09.2005 under section 420/467/468/41.9/471 and FIR No. 229 dated 10.09.2005 under section 420/467/468/419/471/34 of I.P.C have been lodged against him. After hearing all these four candidates, Naid Tehsildar, Jakhal recommended the name of Sh. Iqbal Singh applicant to Tehsildar, Tohana vide his order dated 21.09.2006. Tehsildar Tohana agreed with the recommendation of NT Jakhal and forwarded the same to SDO(C), Tohana vide his order dated 15.02.2006. SDO(C), Tohana after considering relative merits of the candidates also recommended the name of Sh. Iqbal Singh to District Collector, Fatehabad vide his order dated 28.02.2007. 3. District Collector, Fatehabad heard the arguments of counsels presented before him and perused the records. Documents brought before him and concluded that in his view Sh. Gurdial Singh applicant son of Subh Ram is legible fit person and he appointed him Lambardar of village Dher, Tehsil Tohana vide his order dated 12.04.07. 4. Sh. Iqbal Singh son of Harminder Singh aggrieved by collector’s order appealed to Ld Commissioner, Hisar. Appellate Authority heard the arguments of both counsels and found that the appellant was younger, had got Home Guard training. He was a Social worker and took keen interest in motivating people for blood donation etc. Village Panchayat has passed resolution on 11.06.2006 in favour of appellant. Naib Tehsildar, Jakhal in his recommendation reported that no complaint/case had been lodged against him. He was a Social worker and took keen interest in motivating people for blood donation etc. Village Panchayat has passed resolution on 11.06.2006 in favour of appellant. Naib Tehsildar, Jakhal in his recommendation reported that no complaint/case had been lodged against him. In contrast FIRs/Cases stand lodged against the respondent under I.P.C and decision for the same were pending in the court of Sub-divisional Magistrate, Tohana; The Commissioner agreed with arguments of counsel appellant and having found appeal full of force, set aside the order of District Collector, Fatehabad and appointed the appellant Sh. Iqbal Singh Lambardar of village Dher, Tehsil Tohana vide his order dated 18.09.2007. 5. Sh. Gurdial Singh came in revision to this court. After due process this case came for hearing before me on 24.4.2008. During the course of extended arguments, the two sides were permitted to elaborate upon and bring on record significantly relevant evidence and corroborative documents before this court. In my view Revenue Courts are obliged not to ignore evidence that may be critical in deciding true merits of a case irrespective of the stage of the case. As a result of appreciating the arguments and documents presented by both the parties, it became clear that Shri Gurdial Singh had two major factors going against him. Firstly, it was established that Shri Gurdial Singh has an active business of Agriculture Commission Agent at Tohana. This is shown by his application, certification to this fact by the Market Committee, Tohana and photographs showing the frontage and name board of his Commission Agent (Arhtiya) Shop at Tohana. A person who has his business well outside his village and who must, therefore, spend considerable time away from his village can not be expected to perform the duties and responsibilities as a Lambardar who in order to discharge their functions have to be accessible and available to the inhabitants of the village for most of the time. As such if a choice has to be made between a person who has his residence in the village and has largely continuous presence being accessible to the people and one who is likely to be away from the village on a consistent & recurrent basis due to his business interest, the choice would must fall on the former. As such if a choice has to be made between a person who has his residence in the village and has largely continuous presence being accessible to the people and one who is likely to be away from the village on a consistent & recurrent basis due to his business interest, the choice would must fall on the former. The counsel for Shri Gurdial Singh, tried to convince this Court that the appellant had given up his interests in the commission agent shop at Tohana Mandi. To this end when asked, he gave a statement that he did not have an Ahrat licence any more. This statement perse can not overwhelm the other evidences on record. Interestingly one of the two photographs submitted, actually documents an effort at erasing his name from the shop title “M/s Sukhram Singh Gurdial Singh, Commission Agent, Shop No. 16, New Grain Market, Tohana. The 2nd photograph shows his shop of the same title at Sub Yard Dhamtan Sahib Grain market in Jind district. It appears that the lure to become a Lambardar has led Shri Gurdial Singh to make symbolic moves which generate suspicion. 6. The second major factor going against Shri Gurdial Singh’s claim is his association with a criminal act in which FIR No. 229 dated 10.9.2005 under section 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC stands registered at Police Station, City Tohana. The ADA of the district has moved an application before the SDJM, Tohana under section 19 Cr.P.C. for summoning Shri Gurdial Singh among others. The ADA has inter alia stated as sunder: “That in the above noted case accused persons namely Krishan Singh, Khem Raj and Jagdish in connivance with each other received the amount of Rs, 10,000/- belonging to Maya Devi’s widow pension by making fraud. That in this case a draft of amount of Rs. 10,000/- issued through accused Jagdish Clerk by Social Welfare Department, Fatehbad in the name of Maya Devi (Complainant), which is cashed by the accused persons from the Bank of India, Tohana with help of above noted persons. Above noted Inder Kaur impersonated to Maya Devi and marked thumb impression on draft which is identified to Inder Kaur as Maya Devi by the persons namely Gurdial Singh, Ramesh Kumar, Jagroop Singh and Sita Ram. So the above noted persons have specific role in the fraud made by the accused persons. Above noted Inder Kaur impersonated to Maya Devi and marked thumb impression on draft which is identified to Inder Kaur as Maya Devi by the persons namely Gurdial Singh, Ramesh Kumar, Jagroop Singh and Sita Ram. So the above noted persons have specific role in the fraud made by the accused persons. The investigation agency has not challaned to above noted persons without any cogent reasons whereas there is sufficient evidence on the file against the above noted persons, which is collected during investigation.” 7. The Court was to decide in the matter on 24.4.08. Considering the counsel for the Appellant arguments that so far the court has not summoned Shri Gurdial Singh and a citation which mentions registration of FIR as not being entered in such cases, it may be observed that in appointment of Lambardar technicalities alone do not take precedence over the fundamental principles. It has been repeatedly emphasized by various courts that a person to be appointed on the post of Lambardar should be enjoying good reputation and unblemished image. From the above discussion, it cannot be said that Shri Gurdial Singh has the best of public images, ratter the impression is definitely to the contrary. Citations such as 2001 (4) RCR Civil 22, 2006 (3) RCR Civil Kabul Singh vs. FC Punjab, ROR No. 55 of 2005-06, Jai Pal vs. Sher Singh etc. have been cited for proving cases of both side. 8. Looking only at the merits of the case, it is found that Shri Iqbal Singh has a distinct advantage over Shri Gurdial Singh not only because he has motivated a higher value of small savings contributions, more family planning cases, possesses more agricultural land but he also has a certificate of Home Guard training and certificates from Haryana Red Cross Society commending his role in motivating high participation in Blood Donation. He is certainly a more public minded and socially committed person compared to Sh. Gurdial Singh, Commissioner while differing from the Collector’s recommendations has given a detailed order, which also adequately show that in the present circumstances, Shri Iqbal Singh is a better candidate for the post of Lambardar of Village Dher. 9. In view of the observations made above, including evaluation of the case presented by both the parties, I do not propose to interfere with the order of the Commissioner. As such the ROR is dismissed in limine. Announced. 9. In view of the observations made above, including evaluation of the case presented by both the parties, I do not propose to interfere with the order of the Commissioner. As such the ROR is dismissed in limine. Announced. ————————