JUDGMENT Mr. Ajai Lamba, J. (Oral):- This order shall dispose of C.W.P. No.19134 of 2009 titled “Rajinder Singh v. The Financial Commissioner and others” and C.W.P. No.712 of 2010 titled “Amrit Pal v. The Financial Commissioner and others”, as common questions of law and fact are involved. 2. For reference to record, C.W.P. No.19134 of 2009 titled “Rajinder Singh v. The Financial Commissioner and others” is being taken up. 3. Lambardar for the Village Saniana, District Fatehabad was to be appointed for which three candidates were contesting, Rajinder Singh – petitioner, Amrit Pal- petitioner in C.W.P. No.712 of 2010 and Suresh Kumar – respondent No.4. 4. The Collector, Fatehabad appointed Amrit Pal as Lambardar/ Headman. In appeal, Commissioner upheld the order passed by the Collector. The revision petitions were carried which were allowed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 8.12.2006 (Annexure P-1) and the case was remanded to District Collector for re-adjudication. 5. Vide impugned order dated 29.3.2007, Annexure P-2, respondent No.4 – Suresh Kumar was appointed as Lambardar by District Collector. Three appeals were carried by Iqbal Singh, Rajinder Singh and Amrit Pal before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar. Appeal of Rajinder Singh was accepted vide order dated 9.9.2008 (Annexure P-3), while taking into account the comparative merit of the candidates. 6. Two revisions were carried by Suresh Kumar and Amrit Pal before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. Revision Petition filed by Suresh Kumar was accepted by Financial Commissioner vide impugned order dated 9.11.2009 Annexure P-4. Aggrieved by the order, Rajinder Singh and Amrit Pal have filed two writ petitions that are being disposed of vide this common order. 7. Vide order Annexure P-4, respondent No.4- Suresh Kumar has been appointed as Lambardar by only taking into account the hereditary claim of Suresh Kumar. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that hereditary claim cannot be taken into account because the provision in that context has been held to be ultra-vires the Constitution of India by this Court in Bhagwan Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab Chandigarh and others,[ 2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 11 : 2009(1) All India Land Laws Reporter 704] : 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 862: 2009(1) PLR 82. 9. 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 - Suresh Kumar contends that notification published on 23.7.2008 requires the revenue officers to give preference to hereditary claim and therefore, impugned order passed by Financial Commissioner is in accordance with law and deserves no interference. 10. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. This Court in Bhagwan Singh’s case (supra) has held the provision giving preference to hereditary claim to be ultra-vires the Constitution of India, being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 11. So far as comparative merit is concerned, the petitioner – Rajinder Singh, is 47 years of age, B.Sc. pass, owns 138 kanals 4 marlas of land and has 8 certificates in various fields. 12. Amrit Pal – petitioner in C.W.P. No.712 of 2010, is 50 years of age, 9th Class pass and owns 99 kanals of land. 13. Suresh Kumar – respondent No.4 is 51 years of age, 8th Class pass, owns 46 kanals 8 marlas of land and has served in the Home Guards and has done social service by way of blood donation. 14. Considering the comparative merit, Commissioner, Hisar Division vide order Annexure P-3 appointed the petitioner – Rajinder Singh while considering him most suitable to serve as Lambardar. 15. Considering the higher qualification and more land holding, I do not trace any legal infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner. 16. The Financial Commissioner clearly has taken into account a provision that has been held to be ultra-vires the Constitution of India. Possibly in a set of circumstances, where other merit parameters are equal, hereditary claim could be considered a favourable factor in view of the fact that a person coming from the family of a lambardar has experience of the functioning of the office. In the case in hand, however, clearly Rajinder Singh, the petitioner has an edge in context of comparative merit, being more qualified. 17. Such being the circumstances, order dated 9.11.2009 Annexure P-4 is hereby quashed and order passed by Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar dated 9.9.2008 Annexure P.3 is hereby upheld. 18. C.W.P. No.19134 of 2009 is accordingly allowed and C.W.P. No.712 of 2010 is dismissed. --------0JR0---------