ORDER P. Ram, I.A.S. - This is a revision petition, under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 10-6-09 of the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, passed in the matter of appointment of a lambardar of village Bhambuan, Tehsil and District Patiala. 2. Brief facts of the case have already been given in the impugned order dated 15-7-08 of the District Collector, Patiala, which need not to be repeated and may be read as a part of this order. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties. The main issue agitated by the learned counsel for the petition is that it had been conclusively proved that respondent. Daljit Singh was in illegal occupation of Panchayat land and though, this fact was mentioned by the District Collector, yet he had ignored this fact on the ground that there was no evidence on record in that regard. The learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn my attention to the orders of the Honble High Court passed in CWP No. 4581 of 2008 as well as Sh. J.P. Singla, Divisional Deputy Director (Panchayats), Patiala, who vide his order dated dismissed the petition of the respondent, Daljit Singh, declaring that he was in illegal possession of the panchayat land along with others in Khasra No. 133 totalling 5 Kanals 3 Marlas. Even before the Commissioner this issue was raised, which was ignored by him without citing and tangible reasons. Similarly, the issue of registration of a (Sic) Satish Kumar. He had also produced copy of the order dated 11-6-09 passed by Sh. J.P. Singla, Divisional Deputy Director (Panchayats), Patiala, a persual of which ultimately proved that no case was established against Satish Kumar and in the order passed by the Divisional Deputy Director (Panchayats), the Panchayats was asked to get the property demarcated from the revenue department to ascertaining, if there was any illegal possession. The learned counsel for the respondent failed to produce any copy of demarcation got done by the Panchayat, if any, all this clearly established that the conduct of the petitioner, Satish Kumar was unblemished and did not suffer from any disadvantage compared to the respondent, Daljit Singh. He is 8th pass and owns 25 Kanals of land and since there is no other candidate in the filed, he has the right to be considered for appointment as lambardar. He is 8th pass and owns 25 Kanals of land and since there is no other candidate in the filed, he has the right to be considered for appointment as lambardar. Accordingly, I set aside the orders of the District Collector and the Commissioner and appoint Satish Kumar son of Radha Krishan as lanbardar of village Bhambua, Tehsil and District Patiala. The documents produced have been taken on record. .