JUDGMENT Mr. Jasbir Singh, J.: (Oral) - Civil Misc. No. 3903 of 2013 This application has been filed for early hearing of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1059 of 2009, which was ordered to be admitted on 12.8.2010. 2. At the time of hearing of this application, with consent of counsel for the parties, the above said appeal is taken up on board for disposal today itself. 3. Civil Misc. Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1059 of 2009 4. Dispute between the appellant and respondent No. 4 is regarding post of Lambardar in village Fatehgarh, District Rupnagar. The said post fell vacant on the death of previous Lambardar, who was brother of respondent No.4. Applications were invited to fill up that post. On getting report from the Field Revenue Staff, appellant and respondent No.4 emerged as the contesting candidates. The District Collector, Rupnagar, vide order dated 18.10.2005, appointed the appellant as Lambardar of the village. Respondent No.4 went in appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, on 25.8.2006. Relevant portion of that order reads thus:- “4. I have heard both the parties and have also gone through the record of the lower court. In this case, there is no doubt that the appointed candidate in terms of his seniority in the army, was better candidate on merit, however, the question of his belonging to ‘Tiwana Patti’ instead of ‘Chatian Patti’, for which the applications were invited needs to be looked into. It is a settled law that the appointment of lambardar is done on the basis of ‘Patti’, so that his availability is ensured in the village. Although, it is settled law that the choice of the Distt. Collector should not be interfered with, however, in this case, it is important to see whether appointed candidate belonged to the same ‘Patti’. In view of the above, appeal filed in this case is partly accepted and the case is remanded to Collector Ropar with a direction to look into the above point in detail and pass a fresh speaking order. Parties are directed to be present before Distt. Collector, Ropar on 31.10.2006.” 5. The matter was remitted to the District Collector to look into a fact as to whether post of Lambardar was earmarked for a particular Patii or not. Parties are directed to be present before Distt. Collector, Ropar on 31.10.2006.” 5. The matter was remitted to the District Collector to look into a fact as to whether post of Lambardar was earmarked for a particular Patii or not. The appellant went in revision, which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab on 23.11.2006. 6. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the District Collector. Vide order dated 31.10.2007, the Collector appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village. Relevant portion of that order is reproduced hereunder:- “In view of the directions dated 25.8.2006 given by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, after hearing the both the candidates along with their counsels and after perusing the report send by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chamkaur Sahib and after minutely perusing the record on file, I have reached to this conclusion that village Fatehgarh has two Pattis. One Patti is named on Hajara Singh Lambardar on whose death Shri Joginder Singh Lambardar was appointed. After the death of Shri Joginder Singh Lambardar, Shri Gurmeet Singh s/o Shri Joginder Singh was appointed as lambardar who is the brother of candidate Karnail Singh. Now on death of Shri Gurmeet Singh lambardar, this post has fell vacant i.e. is vacant in Patti Hajara Singh Lambardar whose lambardar is Shri Karnail Singh. Second Patti is in the name of Uttam Singh Lambardar whose lambardar is Sadhu Singh who is working as lambardar. Candidate Shri Swaran Singh resides in Patti Uttam Singh lambardar. According to the statement of Shri Sadhu Singh lambardar of this Patti, candidate Swaran Singh is not the resident of this Patti from birth. He has settled here from outside. Both candidates Shri Karnail Singh and Shri Swaran have equal educational qualifications and almost same ages. Both are retired from military. As per Rule 15(A) of Punjab Land Revenue Rules, candidate Shri Karnail Singh s/o late Shri Joginder Singh has hereditary claim too. The appeal/ROA no. 63/6 dated 30.10.2006 filed by Swaran Singh against the order dated 25.8.2006 passed by Ld. Commissioners (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, before the court of Financial Commissioner Appeals-I Punjab Chandigarh had already been dismissed on 13.11.2006. Keeping these facts in mind candidate Karnail Singh is better candidate on merit from the other candidate and he also have hereditary claim. 63/6 dated 30.10.2006 filed by Swaran Singh against the order dated 25.8.2006 passed by Ld. Commissioners (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, before the court of Financial Commissioner Appeals-I Punjab Chandigarh had already been dismissed on 13.11.2006. Keeping these facts in mind candidate Karnail Singh is better candidate on merit from the other candidate and he also have hereditary claim. Therefore, considering Shri Karnail Singh s/o late Shri Joginder Singh as more suitable is appointed as lambardar of village Fatehgarh H.B. No. 126 in place of his deceased brother lambardar Shri Gurmeet Singh s/o Shri Joginder Singh. Order pronounced. After completion and compliance file be consigned to record room.” 7. It was also noticed by the District Collector that brother, father and grandfather of respondent No.4 had enjoyed the post of Lambardar in the village. It was further noticed that post of Lambardar was earmarked for a particular Patti. The appellant went in appeal which was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala on 7.3.2008. Without controverting the reasoning given by the District Collector, order was passed in favour of the appellant appointing him as Lambardar of the village. Respondent No.4 went in revision, which was allowed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab on 12.5.2009. It was specifically observed that earlier order, passed by the Commissioner on 25.8.2006, directing the District Collector to verify a fact as to whether post of Lambardar belongs to a particular Patti had become final. In response to that order, finding was given by the District Collector that post was earmarked for a particular Patti, which could not have been reversed by the Commissioner in view of earlier order passed. The appellant came to this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 10813 of 2009 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 22.7.2009. Hence, this appeal. 8. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the District Collector and the learned Single Judge have wrongly given benefit of an inheritance to respondent No.4 as his claim was accepted simply because his brother, father and grandfather remained Lambardars in the village. It is stated that hereditary claim cannot be taken as a ground to confer the post of Lambardar upon a particular candidate. 9. We have gone through the orders passed by the authorities below and also by the learned Single Judge. It is stated that hereditary claim cannot be taken as a ground to confer the post of Lambardar upon a particular candidate. 9. We have gone through the orders passed by the authorities below and also by the learned Single Judge. As per law, Collector’s choice, invariably, needs to be respected unless it is perverse in law. No such perversity has been shown in the order passed by the District Collector, who gave a specific finding that post of Lambardar belongs to a particular Patti. To say so, it was said that brother, father and grandfather of the appellant had worked as Lambardar in the village for the said Patti. On merits also, respondent No.4 was found having an edge upon the appellant. The Commissioner passed a very nonspeaking order only by noting that there is no Patti/sub division in the village and proclamation was also not made to appoint Lambardar in a particular Patti, order passed by the District Collector was reversed. That mistake was rectified by the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab and then upheld by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reads thus:- “It may be noticed that the District Collector had appointed respondent No.4 (Karnail Singh) as Nambardar of the village keeping in view the fact that he is the brother of the deceased Nambardar Gurmeet Singh and also that he belongs to the same Patti. Besides, he had served in the Military. An appointment of a Nambardas, as is well-known, is an administrative act and prerogative of the District Collector. As such, his selection is not lightly to be undone unless and until there is some gross irregularity, perversity or patent error in the same. No such illegality or irregularity has been pointed out in the order passed by the District Collector i.e. the order dated 31.10.2007 (P9) which has been reiterated in terms of order dated 12.5.2009 (P22) passed by the Financial Commissioner. A perusal of the chart (P12) would show that it is absolutely misconceived and baseless. In the said chart, the petitioner, it is stated retired from the Military as a Naib Subedar after serving the nation for 22 years and during his tenure he fought 3 wars i.e. 1962, 1965 and 1971 and also possessed 8 medals. The age of the petitioner-Swaran Singh is mentioned as 56 years. In the said chart, the petitioner, it is stated retired from the Military as a Naib Subedar after serving the nation for 22 years and during his tenure he fought 3 wars i.e. 1962, 1965 and 1971 and also possessed 8 medals. The age of the petitioner-Swaran Singh is mentioned as 56 years. This chart is dated 31.4.2009. Therefore, the date of birth of the petitioner would be sometime in the year 1953 and by the year 1962 and 1965, he was 9 years old and 12 years old, respectively and at the said age he could not have possibly fought the 1962 and 1965 wars and he could not have even been recruited in the Military. Besides, there is nothing to show that he has possessed 8 medals. Therefore, the chart as filed, does not reflect the correct position and is evidently exaggerated on e on which no reliance is liable to be placed.” 10. Reading of the above order indicates that benefit of hereditary claim was not given to the respondent No.4. Holding the post of Lambardar by brother, father and grandfather of respondent No.4 was also taken, only as a circumstance in his favour. It was also noticed that claim of the appellant that he had fought for the country in the years 1962, 1965 and 1971 was not correct. It was noticed that age of the appellant was mentioned as 56 years at the time when the matter was considered by the District Collector for appointment of Lambardar in the village. By making reference to the same, it was said that in the year 1962, age of the appellant may be was 9 years and then in the year 1965 he may be aged around 12 years. If that be so, his claim that he fought three wars for the country was not correct and justified. It was also noticed that there was no evidence on record to show that he was conferred eight medals as stated by him. On merits, it was said that respondent No.4 was a better candidate. We are of the opinion that order passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified. 11. No case is made out to cause interference in the present appeal by this Court. Dismissed. ------------------