JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - Jagtar Singh has been appointed as Lambardar of Village Shahpur, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana. His appointment is contested by three different applicants, who had contested the claim for appointment to the post of Lambardar of this Village. The appointment of Jagtar Singh, however, has been upheld by the Commissioner and accordingly three petitioners, namely, Malkit Singh , Jaswant Singh and Harimail Singh have filed three separate Civil Writ Petitions Bearing Nos.15210 of 2011 (Malkit Singh Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others), 16178 of 2011 (Jaswant Singh Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others) and 21799 of 2011 (Harimail Singh Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others) to challenge the order appointing Jagtar Singh as Lambardar. Since common order is under challenge in these writ petitions, these writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of through this common order. The facts have been taken from the lead petition No.15210 of 2011 (Malkit Singh Vs. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others). 2. The post of Lambardar of Village Shahpur fell vacant on the death of previous Lambardar on 5.2.2007. A proclamation was made in the village, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Lambardar on 7.11.2007. In all, 9 candidates submitted their applications, which include the three petitioners, Harimail Singh, Jaswant Singh and Malkit Singh, besides Surinder Singh and respondent, Jagtar Singh, who has been appointed as Lambardar. Naib Tehsildar, Payal, forwarded his recommendation, recommending the name of respondent, Jagtar Singh. It is alleged that said Jagtar Singh was not owning any land and was also in an unauthorized possession of the Gram Panchayat land but still, his name was recommended by the Naib Tehsildar. Petitioner, Malkit Singh, was described as non-political person. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Payal, sent the recommendation to the Collector, who appointed respondent, Jagtar Singh, as Lambardar on 19.3.2010. The petitioner would allege that the Collector did so by ignoring the merits of the respective petitioners and appointed respondent, Jagtar Singh, without any application of mind. The petitioners, accordingly appealed against the order passed by the Collector, which were dismissed by the Commissioner on 17.5.2011. The Commissioner has observed that respondent, Jagtar Singh, is sufficiently educated and owns sufficient land. The petitioners, accordingly appealed against the order passed by the Collector, which were dismissed by the Commissioner on 17.5.2011. The Commissioner has observed that respondent, Jagtar Singh, is sufficiently educated and owns sufficient land. This reasoning is disputed by the petitioners in these three petitions and it is urged that respondent, Jagtar Singh, is not owning any land, which is evident from the report given by Halqa Patwari. Accordingly, the petitioners have impugned this order through the present writ petitions. 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners had raised some additional arguments, which are also contained in the connected petitions. It is alleged that there are two FIRs registered respondent No.3, Jagtar Singh, which were completely ignored while directing his appointment as Lambardar. In addition, it is also alleged that respondent, Jagtar Singh, does not own any land, but still he has been appointed as Lambardar. The petitioners claim that they are otherwise better qualified and their merits were ignored. Not only that, even the fact that respondent, Jagtar Singh, was occupying Gram Panchayat land unauthorizedly has been ignored while appointing him as Lambardar. 4. Reply on behalf of respondent, Jagtar Singh, is filed in all the three writ petitions. Answering respondent, Jagtar Singh, rather would allege that the petitioners are in illegal possession of Gram Panchayat land. The petitioners would deny the allegations made by answering respondent that they are in any illegal or unauthorized possession of the Gram Panchayat land. In this regard, answering respondent, Jagtar Singh, has made reference to the verification, which was got done to ascertain the factual position. It is stated that the petitioners herein had agreed to the proposal to call for a report from DDPO-cum-Collector, Ludhiana, in regard to illegal possession after due inspection. On the basis of this agreement between the parties, the Commissioner, Patiala, had passed an order on 10.2.2011, requiring the DDPO to visit the village and inspect the spot to see, if any of the applicants contesting for the post of Lambardar was in illegal occupation of Gram Panchayat land as was alleged. The DDPO had then submitted a detailed report dated 5.4.2011, disclosing the factual position of each candidate regarding the illegal possession of Gram Panchayat land. Petitioner, Malkit Singh, was found to be in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land. The DDPO had then submitted a detailed report dated 5.4.2011, disclosing the factual position of each candidate regarding the illegal possession of Gram Panchayat land. Petitioner, Malkit Singh, was found to be in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land. Jagtar Singh, answering respondent, appointed as Lambardar, however, was not found to be in any illegal possession of Gram Panchayat land. In fact, copy of this report given by the Panchayat Officer to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer is on record as Annexure P-7 in Civil Writ Petition No.16178 of 2011 and on the basis of evidence, the report which is submitted is as under:- “i. Sh.Jagtar Singh son of Arjan Singh is not in legal possession upon any area of Gram Panchayat. ii. Sh.Sureinder Singh son of Arjan Singh is not in legal possession upon any area of Gram Panchayat. iii. Sh.Harimail Singh son of Arjan Singh is in illegal possession upon some part of Khasra No.360 of Gram Panchayat in the front of his residential house. iv. Sh. Jaswant Singh son of Harchand Singh is in illegal possession of some part of Khasra No.16 and Khasra No.20. v. Sh.Malkiat Singh son of Shiam Singh is not in legal possession upon any area of Gram Panchayat.” 5. Thus, Jagtar Singh, answering respondent, was not found in any illegal possession of Gram Panchayat land. Harimail Singh, petitioner, was indeed found in illegal possession on part of Khasra No.360 of Gram Panchayat in front of his residential house. Jaswant Singh, petitioner, was also found in illegal possession of some part of Khasra Nos.16 and 20. Malkit Singh was not in possession of any Gram Panchayat land. Otherwise, Malkit Singh was aged 60 years. He is matriculate. He, however, was found related to political parties. 6. The name of respondent, Jagtar Singh, was recommended by most of the villagers. The Punjab Police has also given a commendation certificate to him. The FIRs, which were statedly registered against respondent No.3, Jagtar Singh, were of old vintage and said respondent, Jagtar Singh, had been acquitted of both the FIRs, much prior to the date of submission of application or date of his consideration. The Punjab Police has also given a commendation certificate to him. The FIRs, which were statedly registered against respondent No.3, Jagtar Singh, were of old vintage and said respondent, Jagtar Singh, had been acquitted of both the FIRs, much prior to the date of submission of application or date of his consideration. The counsel appearing for respondent, Jagtar Singh, has also pointed out that respondent, Jagtar Singh, is owning a large chunk of land in an adjoining village, which is near Village Shahpur and so it can not be said that he is not owning any land, as is being alleged. It is on this basis the Collector and the Commissioner have observed that the said respondent was owning sufficient land. 7. The counsel appearing for the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.15210 of 2011 has relied upon the judgement of Tehal Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, Chandigarh etc., [2009(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2423] : 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 166 to urge that respondent, Jagtar Singh, had made a misleading statement and this would be ground enough to decline his claim. As noticed above, the allegation of having made any misleading statement by respondent, Jagtar Singh, is neither made out nor can be so urged. Accordingly, this judgement may not have much relevance. 8. The counsel appearing for the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.16178 of 2011, on the other hand, has urged that the mere acquittal of respondent, Jagtar Singh, of the criminal charge can not wash away the stigma that he would carry on account of registration of case against him. In support of his submission, the counsel has relied upon the cases of Kabul Singh Vs. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab, 2006 (3) PLR 213, Gurdev Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Pb., Chandigarh and others, [2009(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3125] : 2009 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 808, Major Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Pb., Chandigarh and others, [2009(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1417] : 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 816, Jog Dhian Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, [2005(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 378] : 2005 (2) PLR 306, Ishwar Singh Vs. Satbir Singh & Ors., 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 955 and Krishan Gopal Vs. State of Haryana, [2007(2) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 1502] : 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 330. 9. In Kabul Singh’s case (supra), the petitioner was seeking his appointment but his candidature has been rejected. Satbir Singh & Ors., 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 955 and Krishan Gopal Vs. State of Haryana, [2007(2) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 1502] : 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 330. 9. In Kabul Singh’s case (supra), the petitioner was seeking his appointment but his candidature has been rejected. Two cases were registered against, Kabul Singh and so this Court found that he did not have a clean record. The Court accordingly inclined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. This would not have much relevance in the instant case. The observations made in Gurdev Singh’s case (supra) are to be understood in the light of observations made in Major Singh’s case (supra). One candidate if involved in a criminal case but is acquitted may not earn any disqualification but this can be a factor to be considered while comparing the relative merits. If it is viewed that the acquittal will still carry some stigma, then there would hardly be any distinction between acquittal and conviction. The observations made in the case of Jog Dhian (supra) were made in the facts and circumstances of that case. The acquittal in the said case was on the basis of benefit of doubt and in this context, it is observed that stigma may not be completely washed out. That was also a case where the Collector had chosen to appoint the other candidate, who had equally good merit. The choice of the Collector was held to be good and final in this background and the act of the Collector in ignoring the person who was acquitted of criminal charge was not interfered with. Otherwise the view is well established that the choice of the Collector is to be preferred and stray observation made that the Collector is not a final word in Krishan Gopal’s case (supra) has to be read in the facts and circumstances of that case. In the case of Ishwar Singh (supra), the Court has only held that the age of candidate is a relevant factor. This fact has been duly considered by the Collector and other revenue authorities. 10. In view of the above, no case for interference in the choice exercised by the Collector and upheld by the Commissioner is made out. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.