JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.:(Oral) - Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 13.08.2013 (Annexure P-7) passed by Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab. 2. Brief facts of the case are that to fill up the vacancy caused on account of death of Pritam Dass, Lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of village Mianwal, Tehsil Phillur, District Jalandhar, applications were invited from interested persons by making publication/proclamation in the village after obtaining necessary sanction from the Collector. After completing formalities, matter came up for consideration before the Collector. The Collector after appreciating the comparative merit of the candidates found Surinderpal Singh son of deceased Lambardar Pritam Dass – respondent No.4 to be fit and suitable candidate and vide order dated 12.08.2004 (Annexure P-1) appointed him as Lambardar of the village. Petitioner being aggrieved against the order of the Collector, filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide order dated 10.03.2005 (Annexure P-2) allowed the appeal and appointed petitioner as Lambardar of the village. Respondent No.4 challenged the order Annexure P-2 before the Financial Commissioner and Financial Commissioner vide order dated 04.08.2006 (Annexure P-3) accepted the revision petition and appointed respodndent No.4 as Lambardar of the village. Petitioner filed writ petition in this Court against the order of the Financial Commissioner. This Court vide judgment dated 23.07.2008 set aside the orders passed by revenue authorities and remanded the case to Collector for fresh decision. Collector reconsidered the comparative merits of the candidates and again appointed Surinderpal Singh as Lambardar vide order dated 07.10.2008 (Annexure P-5) on the ground that he is younger in age and is the son of previous Lambardar. Against the order of Collector petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. Commissioner set aside the order of Collector vide order dated 12.08.2009 (Annexure P-6) and appointed petitioner as Lambardar on the ground that respondent No.4 signed two sale deeds dated 29.07.2008 and 29.08.2008 when he was not holding the post of Lambardar. Respondent No.4 preferred revision petition before the Financial Commissioner against the order of Commissioner. Financial Commissioner vide order 13.08.2013 (Annexure P-7) set aside the order of Commissioner and appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village. Hence, instant writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. Respondent No.4 preferred revision petition before the Financial Commissioner against the order of Commissioner. Financial Commissioner vide order 13.08.2013 (Annexure P-7) set aside the order of Commissioner and appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village. Hence, instant writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. So far as comparative merits of the candidates are concerned, same have been appreciated by the Collector, who found that respondent No.4 is younger in age i.e. 30 years old whereas petitioner is 60 years old, besides this, respondent No.4 is the son of deceased Lambardar. After taking into consideration these grounds, Collector appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar. 5. From the perusal of record it is clear that this Court set aside the orders of the revenue authorities with the consent of the parties and remanded the case to Collector for fresh decision. Again the matter has been considered by the Collector and respondent No.4 has been appointed as Lambardar. Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector and appointed petitioner as Lambardar on the ground that there was some lapse on the part of respondent No.4 in signing some sale deeds. But the fact remains that respondent No.4 has earlier worked as Lambardar and under this bona fide mistake he might have signed the sale deeds. The purpose of witnessing the sale deed is just to identify the person. Otherwise also any person can identify the person before Sub Registrar. It is common practice that in village persons continue to be called by same designation. First sale deed was signed just six days’ after setting aside the orders of revenue authorities by this Court. No evidence has been brought on record that respondent No.4 was aware of the order passed by this Court setting aside his appointment as Lambardar. At the most, lapse is qua signing the sale deed, which appears to be bona fide not intentional as there is no evidence that he was in the knowledge of order of remand. 6. In view of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram & others, [2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 545] : 2009(3) SCC-439, Lila Ram Vs. Asa Ram, 1995 Lahore Law Times-29 followed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Phool Kumar Vs. 6. In view of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram & others, [2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 545] : 2009(3) SCC-439, Lila Ram Vs. Asa Ram, 1995 Lahore Law Times-29 followed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Phool Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, [2010(2) Law Herald (P&H) 962 (DB)] : 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 819, the choice of the District Collector cannot be lightly set aside. 7. In Mahavir Singh’s case (supra) the Supreme Court of India has observed that there should be no interference with the choice made by the Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar even if two views are possible. It is only the prerogative of the Collector to compare the merits of the candidates for appointment to the post of Lambardar. There are concurrent findings recorded by the revenue authorities. 8. In view of above discussion, the present writ petition fails. 9. Dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————