JUDGMENT Madhusudan Prasad, J.- The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 30.5.2008 passed by for Commissioner Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon. 2. The brief facts of case are that the post of Lambardar in village Datal Tehsil Narnaul fell vacant consequent upon the demise of previous Lambardar, Nand Ram. After munadi for the post of Lambardar, four applications were received and the antecedent of all the candidate were verified. However, candidate Tara Chand and Raj Kumar did not appear before Assistant Collector IInd Grade. Therefore, ex parte proceedings were initiated against them. The evidence of remaining two candidates Mahavir Prasad & Lakhi Ram was taken. The candidate Lakhi Ram withdrew his application to support Mahavir Prasad. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade recommended the name of Mahavir Prasad as Lambardar of village Datal. 3. However on 6.1.2006, none of candidates appeared in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade ordered fresh munadi in the village. After fresh munadi, 3 candidates came in contest i.e. Mahavir Prasad, Lakhi Ram & Tara Chand. The accused the case law on this point title Gurbachan Singh v. F.C. Punjab, 2001 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 122, was cited. 4. The petitioner’s counsel further argued that respondent No. 1 seldom stays in the village because he has land in the name of his wife in village ‘Devta’ (Rajasthan) and he resides there as well and relied on case law 1993 P.L.J. 177; whereas petitioner resides in the village and is always available in the village. Moreover, the petitioner is a young man of 44 years of age while respondent No. 1 is 53 years of age. In addition, the petitioner deposited Rs. 5,35,000/- in small saving scheme and his name is recommended by Assistant Collector first grade and the Ld. Collector appointed him as Lambardar if village Datal. The Counsel relied on the case law Sumer Singh v. Rameshwar 1999 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) & 497, 2008 (I) Vo (8) Local Act Report. The petitioner counsel prayed for accepting the present revision petition and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.5.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division Gurgaon. 5. Collector appointed him as Lambardar if village Datal. The Counsel relied on the case law Sumer Singh v. Rameshwar 1999 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) & 497, 2008 (I) Vo (8) Local Act Report. The petitioner counsel prayed for accepting the present revision petition and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.5.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division Gurgaon. 5. The Counsel for respondent, Tara Chand argued that the grandfather of Tara Chand, as well as his father Nand Ram, both served as Lambardar of village for a long period of time and proceedings for fresh appointment were actually initiated after the demise of previous Lambardar Nand Ram. It is well settled law that son of deceased Lambardar is entitled to preference and must rank for consideration in view of Haryana Govt. notification dated 23.7.2008, 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 909,1980 P.L.J. 389, 1983 P.L.J.-42. Moreover respondent used to assist his father in discharge of the duties of Lambardar and gained a vast experience of the job in the process which would be a great asset in performing in functions of Lambardar. (1980 P.L.J.- 120, 1980 P.L.J.-548). The Counsel contended that respondent No. 1 had served in the Police Department and it is well settled law that ex-servicemen is entitled to preference in the matter of appointment to the post of Lambardar. The respondent, Tara Chand also deposited a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- in the small saving scheme which is a significant contribution for good cause. 6. Counsel for respondent further argued that Tara Chand has 45 Kanal and 6 marla of agricultural land which to secure the recoveries to be made by him and cited the case law 2006 (2) P.L.J. 47. The respondent is very popular among the people of village and associated of Lambardar, Nangal Choudhary, strongly recommended Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide his order dated 29.3.2007 held that out of the three candidates, Mahavir Prasad, present petitioner is the most suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar. The Collector Mohindergarh vide order dated 2.5.2007 appointed the Mahavir Prasad, present petitioner as Lambardar of village Datal. The respondent filed an appeal before Commissioner, Gurgoan. The Commissioner Gurgaon Division Gurgaon, vide order dated 30.5.2008 reversed the order of Collector and appointed Tara Chand as Lambardar of village Datal. The present petitioner, feeling aggrieved with order of Commissioner, Gurgaon has filed the present revision petition. 7. The respondent filed an appeal before Commissioner, Gurgoan. The Commissioner Gurgaon Division Gurgaon, vide order dated 30.5.2008 reversed the order of Collector and appointed Tara Chand as Lambardar of village Datal. The present petitioner, feeling aggrieved with order of Commissioner, Gurgaon has filed the present revision petition. 7. During initial arguments, it was highlighted that Tara Chand is in unauthorized possession of Panchayat land. There was a material consideration. Therefore, a local commission of Naib Tehsildar was appointed to report on the unauthorized possession of the Panchayat Land. The said local commission submitted his report dated 30.7.2009 which is placed on record (Pages 50-85 of the file). 8. The petitioner’s Counsel argued that Mahavir Prasad has 6 acres land where as the respondent Tara Chand has only 13 Kanals of land in village Datal. The Counsel further argued that Shri Sheokaran, grandfather of respondent No. 1, thereafter the father and now respondent No. 1 Tara Chand himself is in illegal possession of Panchayat land comprising in Khewat No. 207, Khatouni No. 289 Mustil and Kila No. 22/1/2 (3-2),25(5-16), 51/9/1 (2-2) Kita 3 Taddi Rakba 11 Kanal in village Datal, Tehsil Narnaul. This land belongs to the Panchayat as per copy of Jamabandi for 2003-04 on (page 25 of file, Annex P-4). Also 3 years Khasra girdawari of 2004-07 (page 26 of file, Annex P-5) shows panchayat as owner and respondent in possession. The report of the Local Commission (Naib Tehsildar, Nangal Chowdhary) also clearly states that Tara Chand and others are in unauthorized occupation of Panchayat land. The Counsel for petitioner further agreed that respondent No. 1 is not a man of good character and he misbehaves with the village people. He does not have any social circle because of his police background. The Counsel also stated that a criminal case was falsely instituted at the instance of Tara Chand, who was in the Police Department, and the Learned Trial Court held that prosecution has totally failed to prove the guilt and acquitted the his candidature. A large number of respectables of village Datal also sent a memorandum and strongly recommended Tara Chand respondent for appointment to the post of Lambardar. In addition, Gram Panchayat, village Datal also passed a Resolution recommending him for the post of Lambardar. 9. A large number of respectables of village Datal also sent a memorandum and strongly recommended Tara Chand respondent for appointment to the post of Lambardar. In addition, Gram Panchayat, village Datal also passed a Resolution recommending him for the post of Lambardar. 9. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 further argued that Tara Chand respondent No. 1 is a permanent resident of village Datal and owns agricultural land in the concerned estate and holds family ration card and stands registered as a voter and there is no basis for doubting his residence in the village. However, his wife has purchased some agricultural land in village Devta which is on the Rajasthan Border and adjoining with Datal village but he is permanently residing in village Datal along with family. In fact, the petitioner himself is not a resident of village Datal but resides in Dhani Jadma which is about 2 Km. distant from village Datal. 10. Counsel for respondent further argued that it is wrong and misconceived that Sh. Tara Chand is in unauthorized position of 11 Kanal on panchayat land. The contention of the petitioner and the view taken by the Collector are misconceived and there is nothing on record to show that Tara chand is in position of panchayat land. His grandfather Sheo Karan was in position of 11 Kanal of land as co-sharer but abandoned his possession in view of the order of Ld. Collector dated 26.8.1975. The report of local commission (Naib Tehsilder) dated 26.8.1975 is contrary to the order of Ld. Collector dated 26.8.1975 and can not be relied upon. Even if Sheo Karan is assumed to be unauthorized possession had some point of time, his grandson Tara Chand cannot be disqualified for that reason unless his own position is unauthorized position over panchayat land established beyond doubt and cited the case law in 1980 P.L.J. 330, 1980 P.L.J. 187 11. The Counsel argued that age that for the post of Lambardar age is not basic qualification. The basic requirement is that candidate should be healthy and hearty for discharging the duties of Lambardar effectively and one candidate cannot be preferred merely on the basis of difference of age of few years and cited the case law 1987 P.L.J. 246, 1987 P.L.J. 499. The Counsel for respondent stated that this Lambardar relates to patti Sheokaran and indisputably the petitioner does not own land in the patti. The Counsel for respondent stated that this Lambardar relates to patti Sheokaran and indisputably the petitioner does not own land in the patti. It is necessary to give preference to a candidate who owns land in the concerned patti and relied on case law 1964 P.L.J.-141, 1988 P.L.J. 456. Moreover, the petitioner and his brother - respondent No. 2, were involved in criminal cases. However, the Judicial Magistrate First Class acquitted them vide order dated 1.5.2006 on the ground of benefit of doubt. However, such a person can not command respect from the people o village and cited the case law on this point 2005(1) R.C.R. (Civil) - 658 (D.B.). Besides this, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were also involved in a case U/S 107/135 Cr.P.C. and both of them remained in custody for some time. Counsel argued that involvement in criminal cases on more than one occasion casts a stigma cases on the character and reputation of the accused person and it is not in public interest to appoint such a person to the responsible post of Lambardar. 12. The Counsel for respondent further argued that the present revision petition is not maintainable as the Collector had appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of village Datal and appeal against it was allowed by the Ld. Commissioner who set aside the order of Collector. The order of Collector was reverse by the Commissioner vide order dated 30.5.2008 and only an appeal lies under section 13(C) of Punjab land Revenue Act, 1957 and cited the case law, 1981 P.L.J. 172 and copy of order dated 14.12.2004 in R.O.R. No. 173 of 2004. In rebuttal of this argument, Counsel for petitioner argued that the Financial Commissioner can entertain the present petition U/S 16 of Punjab Land Revenue Act. 13. I have heard the counsels for both the parties also carefully perused the record on the file. In this case, there are three candidates in the field for appointment as Lambardar of village Datal, namely Mahavir Prasad, Lakhi Ram and Tara Chand the respondent. On the ground of maintainability raised by the counsel for the respondent I find that this revision petition can be allowed U/S 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Regarding the issue as to which candidate is more suitable, in terms of general considerations like age, health, contribution to Government schemes etc. both are more or less at par. On the ground of maintainability raised by the counsel for the respondent I find that this revision petition can be allowed U/S 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Regarding the issue as to which candidate is more suitable, in terms of general considerations like age, health, contribution to Government schemes etc. both are more or less at par. In terms to ownership of land and residence in the village also, both candidates more or less satisfy the requirement. However, on three grounds, Tara Chand has an edge over his rival. First, both his father and grandfather were Lambardars and he will get the benefit of hereditary claim. Second, Tara Chand owns land in the same patti for which the Lambardar is to be appointed. Third, the criminal cases against Mahavir Prasad leave a scar on his reputation, even though the Court has acquitted him. In these circumstances, I would normally not find any reason to interfere with the decision of Commissioner Gurgaon to appoint Tara Chand as the Lambardar. However, a doubt has arisen about the occupation of Panchayat land by Tara Chand and if true that he is in unlawful possession, it seriously injuries his suitability to be appointed as Lambardar. In question, is a piece of land measuring 11 Kanals and the entries in Jamabandi 2003-04 and Khasra Girdawari 2004 to 2007 show Panchayat as the owner. When the Local Commission appointed by this Court (Naib Tehsildar, Nangal Chowdhry) visited the Village on 30.7.2009. Tara Chand gave an affidavit stating the ownership of Panchayat over this piece of land and stated that his grandfather Sheo Karan had been in occupation of this land. As per the report of the Local Commission (Page 54 to 56 of the file), Tara Chand and other descendents of Sheo Karan are in unauthorized occupation of this piece of land since there is no evidence that the Panchayat land has been leased to them. The counsel of Tara Chand has cited an old other Collector Narnaul dated 28.4.1975 (page 104 of the file) to claim that this 11 Kanal piece of land was allowed to Sheo Karna, grandfather of Tara Chand, and does not belong to the Panchayat. There is no mention in the order of the Collector under what Act or provision of law such a decision was taken by him. There is no mention in the order of the Collector under what Act or provision of law such a decision was taken by him. The Collector was hearing an appeal against eviction and imposition of fine on Sheo Karan, but he proceeded to decide the issue of title. Assuming that his decision was under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, it is unclear from the order whether suit procedure was followed as required to decide title U/S 13 of the Act. Subsequent to this order of 28.4.1975, Sheo Karan did not cause necessary correction to be carried out in the revenue records, nor did the Panchayat go in appeal. This Court cannot go into the lacunae in the order of the Collector; it was for the affected party to appeal against it. At the same time, however, for the limited purpose of deciding appointment of Lambardar, this Court cannot place heavy reliance on this order of Collector overlooking the facts brought to its notice, namely, entries in the revenue record, affidavit of Tara Chand on Panchayat ownership and report of the Local Commission. Tara Chand’s appointment as Lambardar cannot be finalized in the face of such doubts about who is the owner and who is in possession of piece of land measuring 11 Kanal, I, therefore, remand the case to Collector Mohindergarh on this limited point to determine the status of this piece of land and Tara Chand’s occupation thereof and device the case on merits. --------------