JUDGMENT Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral) Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 29.07.2009 (Annexure P/2) passed by Collector, appointing respondent no.2Amrik Singh as Lambardar (SC) of Village Abiana Khurd, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Roopnagar, order dated 23.04.2010 (Annexure P/3) passed by Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, order dated 07.12.2010 (Annexure P/4) and order dated 20.12.2011 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondent no.1, whereby appeal, revision and review petition filed by the petitioner have been dismissed, respectively. Brief facts of the case are that to fill up the vacancy caused on account of death of Ram Asra, previous Lambardar (SC) of Village Abiana Khurd, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Roopnagar, applications were invited from the interested persons by making 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 Amrik Singh – respondent no.2 to be fit and suitable candidate and vide order dated 29.07.2009 (Annexure P/2) appointed him as Lambardar (SC) of the Village. Petitioner Ram Ditta filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide order dated 23.04.2010 (Annexure P/3) dismissed the appeal. Petitioner further filed revision under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act before the Financial Commissioner, who vide order dated 07.12.2010 (Annexure P/4) dismissed the revision. Thereafter, petitioner preferred a review petition, which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2011 (Annexure P/6). Hence, instant writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. A perusal of the record shows that all the authorities have recorded the concurrent findings. The District Collector after appreciating the comparative merits specifically the qualifications and age, found respondent No.2 Amrik Singh to be fit and suitable candidate and appointed him as such. Otherwise, respondent no.2 has good reputation in the village. It is a settled principle of law that the choice of the Collector cannot be lightly set aside. It can only be set aside if there is perversity or illegality in the impugned order of the Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the District Collector. It can only be set aside if there is perversity or illegality in the impugned order of the Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the District Collector. The finding of the District Collector has been affirmed by the Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner. 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(3) SCC439, 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) RCR (Civil) 819, the choice of the District Collector cannot be lightly set aside. 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. In view of above discussion, the present writ petition fails. Dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.