Judgment Rajive Bhalla, J. 1. The petitioner prays tor issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 19.11.2003, 14.12.2004 and 12.03.2008, passed by the Collector. Amritsar, the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh, appointing respondent No. 4, as the Lambardar of village Riar, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. 2. On the demise of incumbent Lambardar, the Collector initiated proceedings for appointment of the new Lambardar of village Riar. The Tehsildar and the Sub Divisional Magistrate Ajnala recommended the name of the petitioner. The Collector appointed the petitioner as the Lambardar. The candidature of respondent No. 4 was rejected on the ground that he was held guilty, by the Divisional Officer, Canal-cum-Collector, for theft of canal water. Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, which was dismissed. He, thereafter filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, pleading that the petitioner could not be appointed as the Lambardar as he is not a resident of village Riar but a resident of village Sagna. The Financial Commissioner held that the petitioner is permanent resident of village Riar. On the basis of a report prepared by the Tehsildar but remitted the matter to the Collector to deter-nine. whether the petitioner owns any land or other property it village Sagna that would prevent him from effectively discharging the duties of the Lambardar of village Riar. 3. The Collector, reconsidered the matter but without recording any finding as directed, by the Financial Commissioner. held that though as per the voter list, ration card and identity card, the petitioner is a resident of village Riar, but as his name appears at Sr.No. 177 in the voter list of village Sagna for the year 1999, he cannot be appointed as a Lambardar of village Riar. The Collector, ordered the appointment of respondent No. 4 as the Lambardar of village Riar. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, which was dismissed. A revision Bled before the Financial Commissioner met the same fate. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are perverse and arbitrary. The Financial Commissioner remitted the matter to the Collector to record a finding whether ownership of property in village Sagna would prevent the petitioner from effectively discharging his duties as the Lambardar of village Riar. A revision Bled before the Financial Commissioner met the same fate. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are perverse and arbitrary. The Financial Commissioner remitted the matter to the Collector to record a finding whether ownership of property in village Sagna would prevent the petitioner from effectively discharging his duties as the Lambardar of village Riar. The Collector has not recorded any such finding but after holding that the petitioner does not own any property in village Sagna and is a bona fide resident of village Riar. It is argued that once the Collector held that the petitioner does not own land in village Sagna, there was no question of any further enquiry but the Collector. held that the petitioner cannot be appointee as the Lambardar of village Riar as his name figures in the voter list of village Sagna for the year 1999. It is further argued that respondent No. 4 has been appointed as the Lambardar without discussing his merits or taking into consideration, the pendency of criminal cases or That he was held guilty in a case relating to theft of canal water. It is argued that as the order passed by the Collector is contrary to the record, it is perverse and arbitrary and should have been set aside by the appellate and revisional authority. 5. Counsel for respondent No. 4, on the other hand, submits that as the petitioners name finds mention in the voter list of village Sagna, for the year 1999, the Collector rightly rejected the petitioners candidature. The petitioner may have got married to the deceased Lambardars daughter but this fact alone does not entitle the petitioner to assert that he is a resident of village Riar. The case relating to theft of canal water does not relate to respondent No. 4 land and is, therefore, irrelevant. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the paper book and the impugned orders. As is apparent from the narrative of facts, the Collector appointed the petitioner as the Lambardar of village Riar, the Commissioner affirmed this order. The case relating to theft of canal water does not relate to respondent No. 4 land and is, therefore, irrelevant. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the paper book and the impugned orders. As is apparent from the narrative of facts, the Collector appointed the petitioner as the Lambardar of village Riar, the Commissioner affirmed this order. The Financial Commissioner affirmed the appointment of petitioner as the Lambardar but remanded the matter to the Collector for En enquiry whether ownership of property in village Sagna would adversely effect the petitioner in the discharge of his duty as the Lambardar The order passed by the Financial Commissioner reads as follows : "Gurmukh Singn is the son-in-law of the deceased lambardar. His landlord in village Piar is I acre of land purchased from, his wife vide registered sale deed dated 13.2.1998. The Collector relied on the report dated 4.1.1999 of the SDM Ajnala that Gurmukh Sigh had permanently shifted residence from v. Sagna to v. Riar, but there is a decided ambiguity in that report. Gurmukh Singh was registered as a voter in v. Sagna as late as 1999. The question whether Gurmukh Singh had land or other interests in v. Sagna as on the date when the select on was made, which would render him ineffective as lambardar of v. Riar has not been addressed. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the District Collector for a finding of fact and fresh decision if so warranted. The parties are directed to appear before him on 17.6.2002." The Financial Commissioner did not interfere with the appointment of the petitioner but only directed the Collector to consider whether the petitioner had any land or other interest in village Sagna as on the date of his selection, which would render him ineffective as the, Lambardar of village Riar, and record a fresh decision only if so warranted. The Collector was required to find out whether the petitioner owned any land in village Sagna, on the date of selection, and if so whether this would prevent him from effectively discharging his duties as the Lambardar of village Riar. The Collector however, misconstrued this order and interpreted it as a direction to consider whether the petitioner was a resident of village Riar the year, 1999. A relevant extract from the order passed by the Collector reads as follows. The Collector however, misconstrued this order and interpreted it as a direction to consider whether the petitioner was a resident of village Riar the year, 1999. A relevant extract from the order passed by the Collector reads as follows. - "After hearing the arguments of counsel for both the candidates and written arguments Tiled by them and on perusal of the record if come to the conclusion that residence or Gurmukh Singh candidate has been verified in village Riar as is shown by voter list, Ration Card and Identity Card. The candidate Gurmukh Singh is son-in-law of deceased Lambardar Partap Singh ana has been living in village Riar after his marriage. He has been depositing the land revenue in the Government Treasury after collection in the life time of his father in law Partap Singh because of his old age and has been working as Lambardar since 6.4.1999 after his appointment as Lambardar. Although it is correct that the name of candidate Gurmukh Singh shown in the voter list of village Riar for the year 1998 and his ration card is also in village Riar and at the time of appointment of candidate Gurmukh Singh as Lambardar on 6.4.1999 by the then Collector, he did not own any land in village Sagna but in the voter list of 1999 of village Sagna the name of Gurmukh Singh is entered at Sr. No. 177 in the list of deleted votes of village Sagna, in the voter list of 2001 his name is shown as deleted at Sr.No. 177. It,also transpires that in the year 1999 when Gurmukh Singh was appointed Lambardar at that time his name was entered in the voter list of village Sagna and his name was deleted from i he voter list of it age Sagne in the list of 2001." A perusal of the above extract reveals that the Collector has recorded a finding that the petitioner does not own any laid in village Sagna and is a bona fide resident of village Riar. The matter, in all fairness, stood concluded with this finding in view of the limited nature of the order of remand passed by the Financial Commissioner but the Collector proceeded to reject the candidature of the petitioner, in object disregard to his finding and the order of remand. The matter, in all fairness, stood concluded with this finding in view of the limited nature of the order of remand passed by the Financial Commissioner but the Collector proceeded to reject the candidature of the petitioner, in object disregard to his finding and the order of remand. Even otherwise, the mere fact that the petitioner may have at one time been a resident of village sagna or that his name continued to appear in the voter list of village Sagna upto 2001 was neither germane nor relevant to the limited enquiry ordered by the Financial Commissioner. The finding that the petitioner has been living in village Riar after his marriage, which took place before the death of the previous Lambardar (Who is the petitioners father-in-law), and before initiation of the process for appointment of the post of Lambardar clearly raises an irrefutable presumption that the petitioner had come to reside in village Riar before initiation of the process for appointment of the Lambardar. In addition, the material on record, namely, the report submitted by the Tehsildar, during the initial process for appointment the fact that the petitioner owns one acre of land in village Riar, the fact that his name appears as a voter of village Riar, the issuance of a ration card and identity card of village Riar, and the fact that the petitioner does not own any land in village Sagna rebuts any adverse inference that may arise from the entry in the voter list of village Sagna of the year 1999. The Collector, was, therefore, not justified whether in fact or in law in rejecting the petitioners candidature, by misconstruing the order of remand passed by the Financial Commissioner. In view of the finding recorded by the Collector that the petitioner does not own any land in village Riar, it would necessarily follow that the petitioner shall not be impeded in the discharge of his duties as the Lambardar of village Riar. 7 Both the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner dealt with the matter in a perfunctory manner, as they failed to peruse the documents on record. the order of remand passed by the Financial Commissioner and dismissed the appeal and the revision, arbitrarily. 8. 7 Both the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner dealt with the matter in a perfunctory manner, as they failed to peruse the documents on record. the order of remand passed by the Financial Commissioner and dismissed the appeal and the revision, arbitrarily. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the order dated 06.04.1999 passed by the Collector appointing the petitioner as the Lambardar of Village Riar, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar is restored/upheld. No order as to costs.