Judgment P.Ram, J. 1 This is a revision petition under Section 16 of he Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 14-8-07 of the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, passed in the matter of appointment of a lambardar of village. Madanpur Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. 2 Brief facts of the case have already been given in the impugned order dated 12-9-06 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. A perusal of order of the Collector and the Commissioner indicates that the respondent, Balbir Singh was appointed as lambardar primarily keeping in view his excellent public relations with the villagers by noting that 81 persons had favoured his candidature compared to 19 person, in favour of the petitioner. A perusal of the report of the Naib Tehsildar, Rajpura dated 31 -3-06 also indicates that Surj it Singh, petitioner was an active member of CPI (M). The Collector had also recoded that both the subordinate revenue officers had made a recommendation in favour of the respondent. It was also recorded that the respondent is 7th- 8th pass and has working knowledge of Punjabi and English compared to 9th pass-standard of the petitioner. The plea of learned counsel for the petitioner that he was educationally, more qualified and had more landed property (9 bighas 4 biswas) compared to (4 bighas) the respondent, cannot be treated as any additional advantage particularly when his relation with the village community do not appear to be good. On an allegation being made by the learned counsel for the respondent, an affidavit dated 9-12-09 was given by the petitioner that there was no criminal case pending against him. The learned counsel for the respondent today submitted reply to the affidavit alongwith attested photo copies of reports of cases pending against the petitioner under Sections 07/151 and 452, 323, 506 FPC levelled vide report No. 226/06, which were also perused by the learned counsel for the petitioner. All this clearly indicates that the petitioner does not enjoy any special advantage over the candidature of the respondent, who was appointed by the Collector and which, appointment was upheld by the Commissioner. All this clearly indicates that the petitioner does not enjoy any special advantage over the candidature of the respondent, who was appointed by the Collector and which, appointment was upheld by the Commissioner. It is a standard practice in appointment of lambardari cases that generally the choice of the District Collector is not interfered with until and unless there is something basically wrong with the order. In the instant case, the order of the Collector appears to be fairly well balanced and rational. Accordingly, see no justification for giving any relief to the petitioner and dismiss the revision petition.