Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against an order dated 31.3.2011 passed by a Single Bench of this Court, vide which CWP No. 19180 of 2010, filed by respondent No. 4 Gurdial Singh, was allowed and he was ordered to be appointed as Lambardar of Village Pahra, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. 2. When notice of motion was issued, following contention of counsel for the appellant was noticed by this Court on 4.5.2011 :- "Counsel for the appellant states that applications were invited to appoint a Lambardar for Patti Gulab in village Pahra. By making reference to the contents of the report made by the Tehsildar dated 5.2.2005, counsel states that respondent No. 4 do not own any land in the said Patti and as such, he was not eligible for appointment as a Lambardar. It is further contention of counsel for the appellant that in this case, after the death of father of the appellant, the proceedings should have been started afresh for appointment of a Lambardar." Thereafter, on 18.7.2011, following order was passed :- "In this case, there is a dispute whether post of Lambardar in question was for Patti Gulabki (Village Pahra) or village Pahra. District Revenue Officer, Gurdaspur is directed to file an affidavit stating therein :- (i) Whether the deceased Lambardar-Bua Singh, whose post is in question, was appointed for Patti Gulabki (village Pahra) or for village Pahra? (ii) How many Lambardars are in the village and whether village is divided into Pattis and for each Patti, a separate Lambardar has been appointed or not?" 3. In response thereto, an affidavit has been filed by the District Collector stating that village Pahra is divided into three 'tarafs' consisting of various Pattis. 4. As per facts on record, on accrual of post of Lambardar in the village, applications were invited. Respondent No. 4 and father of the appellant were the contesting candidates. Before final decision was taken, father of the appellant died and on an application moved, he was taken in as contesting applicant. 5. The Collector vide order dated 30.3.2007 appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar of the village. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- "Arguments of both the parties were heard and perused the file. Before final decision was taken, father of the appellant died and on an application moved, he was taken in as contesting applicant. 5. The Collector vide order dated 30.3.2007 appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar of the village. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- "Arguments of both the parties were heard and perused the file. As per file, the Assistant Collector Grade II, Gurdaspur, recommended the name of Bua Singh for the appointment of Nambardar whereas the Assistant Collector Grade I, Gurdaspur, has recommended the name of Gurdial Singh for the appointment of Nambardar. After the death of Bua Singh, on submitting application, his son Ranjit Singh has been accepted as contestant. Gurdial Singh is comparatively aged person than Ranjit Singh is better candidate for discharging his duties. Therefore, after accepting the recommendations of Assistant Collector Grade I, Gurdaspur, Gurdial Singh son of Gurbachan Singh is hereby appointed as Nambardar of the village Pahra, Hadbast No. 357, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, which has become vacant due to the death of Nambardar Sant Singh son of Narain Singh. Certificate for Nambardari be issued. File be sent to Assistant Collector Grade I, Gurdaspur, for further compliance. Order has been announced." 6. The appellant went in appeal, which was dismissed on 17.6.2009 by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, by noting that on merits, respondent No. 4 is a better candidate. He owns sufficient amount of agriculture land and he is permanent resident of the village. 7. Matter came to the Financial Commissioner in revision and vide order dated 26.5.2010, after noting that Lambardar, on account of whose death post had become available, was appointed for Patti Gulab. Taking note of a fact that respondent No. 4 does not own any land in Patti Gulab, his appointment was set aside and in his place, the appellant was appointed as a Lambardar of Village Pahra. 8. Matter came to this Court and the Learned Single Judge opined that on merits, respondent No. 4 is the better candidate and choice of the Collector is not to be interfered unless it is perverse in law or on facts, and allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Financial Commissioner. Hence, this appeal. 9. 8. Matter came to this Court and the Learned Single Judge opined that on merits, respondent No. 4 is the better candidate and choice of the Collector is not to be interfered unless it is perverse in law or on facts, and allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Financial Commissioner. Hence, this appeal. 9. To know whether the post was advertised for a Patti or for the entire village, we have gone through the proclamation made, which is available at Page 29 of the paper book (P-1). The proclamation made to invite applications for the post of Lambardar reads thus :- "In the Court of Rajinder Singh, Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Gurdaspur. Category of case - Lambardari Village - Pahra Date of Hearing - 30.9.2004 Patwari Halqua - Pahra In the context of above subject case your are directed that in the village Pahra new lambardar is to be appointed. So in this regard, proclamation is to be conducted in the village. Persons desirous of becoming lambardar can move their applications upto 30.9.2004 in this Court. After the expiry of fixed date, no objection will be heard. Summon of proclamation be signed from respectable of the village as a token of attestation of their presence and after recording the proclamation report in daily diary report, it be sent to this Court before the date fixed. Number : 1367/Reader/Dt. 17.9.2004 Sd/- Assistant Collector 2nd Grade Gurdaspur" 10. There is no mention that applications were being invited for a particular Patti. After order passed by the Financial Commissioner, 'Sanad Lambardari' was issued in favour of the appellant, copy of which is available at Page 60 (R-3/6) in the paper book. 11. In that 'Sanad' also, there is no mention that Lambardar was appointed for a particular Patti, as alleged, rather the appellant was shown to have been appointed as Regular Lambardar of village Pahra, Hadbast No. 357, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. 12. If that is so, contention of the appellant that respondent No. 4 does not own any land in a particular Patti, becomes insignificant. Intention of the Collector to appoint Lambardar for a sub-division in village, can be gathered only from the proclamation made in the village and not otherwise. Unless in the proclamation it is mentioned that a Lambardar is for a particular Patti, it cannot be treated as such. Intention of the Collector to appoint Lambardar for a sub-division in village, can be gathered only from the proclamation made in the village and not otherwise. Unless in the proclamation it is mentioned that a Lambardar is for a particular Patti, it cannot be treated as such. Otherwise also, respondent No. 4 is a better candidate for the post of Lambardar. No case is made out for interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.