JudgmentJudgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.3.2009 passed in CWP No.368 of 2007 allowing the petition of respondent No.4 - Harmanpreet Singh. It is pertinent to mention that after considering merits and demerits of the appellant alongwith respondent No.4 Harnmanpreet Singh, the District Collector, Muktsar has appointed respondent No.4 Harmanpreet Singh as Lambardar of the village. On appeal filed by the appellant alongwith one Manjit Singh, the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division remanded the case back to the District Collector for fresh decision on the question whether respondent No.4-Harmanpreet Singh was in illegal occupation of panchayat land. A detailed inquiry was conducted by the District Collector and after recording of proceedings it was found that respondent No.4 Harmanpreet Singh was more suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar. Accordingly, he was appointed as Lambardar. The appellant again challenged the order of the District Collector before the Commissioner who once again remanded the matter back to the District Collector vide his order dated 28.1.1999 to ascertain the allegation of encroachment of panchayat land and as to whether the illegal possession of the panchayat land would adversely affect the character of the candidate. The District Collector entrusted the inquiry to the Sub Divisional Magistrate with a specific direction to afford an opportunity of being heard to the parties. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mallout after hearing both the parties and visiting the spot recommended the name of respondent No.4 Harmanpreet Singh on 29.9.2000 for appointment to the office of Lambardar of village Khema Khera. However, inspite of the inquiry report on 9.5.2002, the District Collector, Muktsar appointed the appellant as Lambardar. The appeal filed by respondent No.4 Harmanpreet Singh before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur was dismissed on 7.11.2002. The revision petition before the Financial Commissioner preferred by respondent No.4 Harmanpreet Singh was dismissed on 16.2.2006. 2. Respondent No.4 Harmanpreet Singh approached this Court with the grievance that the District Collector without recording any finding against him has non-suited him although on earlier two occasions he has always been favoured with the appointment. The learned Single Judge found that if in a enquiry father of respondent No.4 Harmanpreet Singh was found to be in illegal possession of panchayat land it will not disqualify him for being appointed as Lambardar. The learned Single Judge found that if in a enquiry father of respondent No.4 Harmanpreet Singh was found to be in illegal possession of panchayat land it will not disqualify him for being appointed as Lambardar. The learned Single Judge has opined that such a finding would be perverse merely because his father has encroached the panchayat land. The aforesaid finding was fortified by an independent fact that Sub Divisional Magistrate in his enquiry had noticed that respondent No.4 Harmanpreet Singh was staying separately with his mother who was divorced by his father. Moreover, the claim of respondent No.4 Harmanpreet Singh was hereditary as his grand father was Lambardar of the village. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the paper book with their able assistance. 4. The post of Lambardar is filled up in accordance with Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (for brevity the Rules). It would be necessary to examine the aforesaid rule which reads thus: "15. Matters to be considered in first appointments.- In all first appointments of headman, regard shall be had among other matters to a) the hereditary claim; b) the property in the estate possessed by the candidate to secure the recovery of land revenue; c) services rendered to the State by himself or by his family; d) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness; e) the strength and importance of the community from which selection of a headmen is to be made; f) services rendered by himself or by his family in the national movements to secure freedom of India." 5. A perusal of the above rule shows that various factors are required to be taken into account which are illustratively as follows: a) the hereditary claim b) the property in the estate possessed by the candidate c)services rendered to the State by himself or by his family; d) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness; e) the strength and importance of the community from which selection of a headmen is to be made; f) services rendered by himself or by his family in the national movements to secure freedom of India. 5. It has come on record that respondent No.4 Harmanpreet Singh is 10 + 2 pass and he was youngman of 20 years old at the time of his appointment. 5. It has come on record that respondent No.4 Harmanpreet Singh is 10 + 2 pass and he was youngman of 20 years old at the time of his appointment. His grand father was also village Headman and he has hereditary claim.His father lives separately after having divorced his wife i.e. mother of respondent No.4. On these facts merely because his father is found to be in illegal possession of panchayat land would not constitute a basis to disqualify respondent No.4 Harmanpreet Singh. He answers the description of various qualifications and has edge over the appellant in as much as he has hereditary claim to the office of Lambardar. Therefore, we are of the view that on the anvil of Rule 15 of the Rules, the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be regarded as illegal. There is thus no legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. Even otherwise it is well settled that the choice of .he Collector must be honoured as he is the person who has to ensure proper working of the incumbent of the position of Lambardar as has been held in the case of Ram Raji v. Financial Commissioner, (2007)1 L.A.R. (1) 547. For the reasons afore mentioned this appeal does not warrant admission and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Jaswant Singh, J. Appeal dismissed.