ORDER 1. This appeal under section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 challenges order dated 19-2-2014 passed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar in the matter of appointment of Lambardar. 2. Briefly, facts of the case are that Sukhjinder Singh, appellant, was appointed as Lambardar of village Dhuleta, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar, by the District Collector vide order dated 24-5-2011 against the vacancy caused by the death of incumbent Nirmal Singh. Against this order, two separate appeals, one By Shingara Singh (present respondent No. 2) and other by Jasbir Singh were filed before Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, who vide order dated 19-2-2014 set aside the order of District Collector and appointed Shingara Singh as Lambardar of the village. Hence the present appeal. 3. Counsel for both the parties have filed their written arguments, which I have perused, as well as the file. Appellant has challenged the impugned order setting aside the Collector’s order appointing him as lambardar on the grounds that it is based on an incorrect appraisal of facts. Specifically that appellant was not in unauthorised possession of any village common land as held by Commissioner, since the report of Naib Tehsildar relied upon by Commissioner (Annexure P-1 to this petition) clearly records that this land is cultivated by one Jaswant Singh son of Kartar Singh; a copy of a rent receipt issued by Gram Panchayat to him is also annexed. Secondly, the Commissioner’s finding that he is occupying a public, path (revenue rasta) is not based on any documentary evidence. Therefore, there were no grounds to set aside the Collector’s order, since respondent is less qualified than appellant in terms of all parameters (defined in Rule 15) to be considered in first appointment of a lambardar. Respondent No. 2 has submitted that the Collector’s order had been correctly set aside by Commissioner since it was a non-speaking order. No reasons were recorded therein for differing with the recommendations of the lower Revenue Officers all of whom had recommended respondent No. 2. Further, Collector had ignored respondent’s plea that appellant had fraudulently obtained a disability certificate (60% disabled in lower limbs) based on a medical certificate purportedly issued in some other State on 29-11-2000 whereas, he also claimed to drive a two-wheeler and a four-wheeler vehicle. This certificate of disabilities has been got by showing his income being Rs. Further, Collector had ignored respondent’s plea that appellant had fraudulently obtained a disability certificate (60% disabled in lower limbs) based on a medical certificate purportedly issued in some other State on 29-11-2000 whereas, he also claimed to drive a two-wheeler and a four-wheeler vehicle. This certificate of disabilities has been got by showing his income being Rs. 1,000/- per month, which is inconsistent with his claim of land ownership in this Lambardari case. That he had illegally carved out a path in Gram Panchayat land bearing Khasra No. 4772 (area 1 kanal 5 marlas) as described in Patwari report dated 9-11-10 countersigned by Naib Tehsildar. On these grounds the Collector’s order was perverse and was rightly set aside by Commissioner. Respondent has cited the ruling of the High Court in 2013 (1) PLJ 658 wherein it was held that endeavour of the Revenue Authorities should be to appoint a person with,a clear image and most suitable out of the contesting candidates. Similarly, it was held by the High Court in 2000 (2) PLJ 568 that “..We find no infirmity in the view taken by the Financial Commissioner. While appointing a person to an office of trust, his conduct is a relevant consideration. A person who is nearly 70 years of age had tried to get the appointment by claiming that he was only 55 years old. The mistake, as observed by the Financial Commissioner, was not merely clerical. It was an attempt to get office by claiming that the applicant was likely to discharge the duties for sufficiently long time. It was not a bonafide act.” Respondent has cited the judgement of a Division Bench of the High Court in Karam Singh v. Financial Commissioner, 2006 (1) LAR 411 where it was held that “..It is settled position of law that Commissioner cannot substitute his choice in place of that of the Collector, without giving solid reasons for doing so. The choice of the District Collector, in the matter, is of primary importance, and it cannot be interfered with unless there is some patent shortcoming in it or it suffers from some other infirmity or perversity”, and argued that Commissioner had correctly exercised his appellate jurisdiction in this case. The choice of the District Collector, in the matter, is of primary importance, and it cannot be interfered with unless there is some patent shortcoming in it or it suffers from some other infirmity or perversity”, and argued that Commissioner had correctly exercised his appellate jurisdiction in this case. In support he has cited a decision of the Financial Commissioner in Balbir Chand v. Kuldip Singh 2012 (1) LAR 630 wherein Jagpal Singh Sandhu, Financial Commissioner held that “..No doubt District Collector has to make his own decision, but the decision has to be based on the facts brought on the record. If reports of the revenue officers are to be discarded without assigning any reason then the entire exercise of getting report from the revenue officers becomes meaningless. The Commissioner has rightly set aside the order of the District Collector being perverse order..”. This view falls within the ambit of judgement of the High Court in 2011 (3) LAR 406 wherein it was held by Justice Ajai Lamba as follows :- “..The Financial Commissioner has upset the order of Commissioner, vide order dated 10-6-10 (Annexure P-3), primarily on the ground that Collector is the best judge to decide the suitability of a person arid his discretion in the matter should not be interfered with unless it is proved beyond doubt that the selected person has positive disqualification which debars him from appointment. : The Commissioner is the appellate authority and is required to consider the facts and circumstances of the case, including comparative merit. It is not in dispute that-respondent No. 6 was convicted for commission of offence under Section 188 IPC, although in the year 1998. Other than that, the respondent is less educated as compared to the petitioner and does not own any land in his name. Petitioner, to the contrary, is ex-army personal with commendations to his credit. The service rendered to the country, while in the Army, cannot be ignored. Petitioner owns approximately 18 kanals of land, and is more educated. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the appellate forum i.e. Commissioner did not commit any illegality in interfering with the order.passed by Collector. The service rendered to the country, while in the Army, cannot be ignored. Petitioner owns approximately 18 kanals of land, and is more educated. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the appellate forum i.e. Commissioner did not commit any illegality in interfering with the order.passed by Collector. Considering the comparative merit, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it was not appropriate for the Financial Commissioner to ignore the consideration of comparative merit of the applicants by the appellate forum i.e. the Commissioner.” Respondent has claimed that keeping in view the above precedents the impugned order has correctly set aside the Collector’s order which is perverse for being non-speaking and ignoring material facts. 4. I have perused the record. - The impugned order makes the following observations :- “As per record Jasbir Singh is 61 years old, 8th pass and owner of (1 kanal 14 marlas) land (P-T99 of lower court file). Shingara Singh is 45 years old, 10th pass and owner (32-0) of land in village. Sukhjinder Singh respondent is 34 years old, +2 pass and owner (48-0) land in the village. Appellant Jasbir Singh is more aged and less educates, he owner very less land in the village and it is not desirable to make him a lambardar. Respondent Sukhinder Singh is younger, more educated and owns more land but there is serious allegation of his encroachment on the public rasta and he admits this fact. He also obtained a handicapped certificate in 2009 showing 30% handicap of his lower limb and also drawing Govt, pension and now he claimed he -is all right. Shingara Singh appellant 45 years old, metric pass and owner of sufficient land in the village (35-0) and where is no allegation against Collector while appointing the respondent as Lambardar should have taken report of Naib Tehsildar dated 9-11-2010 (at page 269) regarding encroachment by. the respondent.” 5. In these circumstances, the Commissioner has correctly exercised his appellate jurisdiction and set aside a non-speaking order of the Collector, clearly that order was perverse for ignoring relevant material about the conduct of appellant. Dismissed. Announced. ---------0.B.S.0------------