ORDER 1. These are three connected revision petitions u/s 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against order dated 4-12-12 passed by Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, and order dated 9-6-11 passed by District Collector, Sri Muktsar Sahib in the matter of appointment of Lambardar. Being connected, they are decided by this single order; a copy be placed on each file. 2. Briefly, facts of the case are that on the death of Sunder Singh, Lambardar of village Charhewan, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Bhupinder Singh was appointed as Lambardar by the District Collector on 9-6-2011 .”Against this order three separate appeals were filed by the present petitioners before Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, which were dismissed on 4-12-2012. Hence, the present revision petitions. 3. Arguments of counsels for petitioners Parkash Singh and Baljit Singh and respondent No. 1 were heard on 28-4-2015, whereas, written arguments have been filed by counsel for Chanan Singh (petitioner). The finding in the Commissioner’s order impugned is as follows:- “The impugned order of the Director Collector, Sri Sahib, reveals that a case FIR No. 55, dated 9-5-10 under Sections 341/323/148/149 IPC PS Sadar, Sri Muktsar Sahib, has been registered against Baljit Singh, Chanan Singh and Parkash Singh, appellants, which is pending in the court. Thus, these persons are not suitable for the post of Lambardar. On the other hand, Bhupinder Singh, respondent No. 1, is aged about 31 years, owns 78 kanals 16 marlas of land, and has passed BA, LLB. He is practicing as Lawyer at Muktsar, and will be available to every person of the village at any time for his work. He also takes part in social activities of the village. His name was recommended by the Tehsildar as well as by the SDM, Sri Muktsar Sahib. In the ruling of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 837, it has been held that “Appointment of Lambardar-Registration of FIR against both petitioners and respondent - Effect of - Held that, candidates involved in criminal cases, should not be considered for the appointment of Lambardar as they are not suitable to discharge the functions of Lambardar. A Lambardar is required to have a clean record.” The learned District Collector, Sri Muktsar Sahib, therefore, vide his order dated 9-6-2011 rightly appointed the respondent No. 1 as Lambardar of the village.” 4. A Lambardar is required to have a clean record.” The learned District Collector, Sri Muktsar Sahib, therefore, vide his order dated 9-6-2011 rightly appointed the respondent No. 1 as Lambardar of the village.” 4. Admittedly all three petitioners are accused in this criminal case which is pending for adjudication before the trial court. Petitioner has argued that as per the law of the land they are presumed innocent till proven guilty, hence, pendency of criminal case cannot be a disqualification for a lambardar. In support, counsel have cited the judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2001 (2) PLR 503 titled Gurbachan Singh v. Financial Commissioner in which Justice Jawahar Lai Gupta held that “it is clear that only a case has been registered. No finding of guilt has been recorded. No adverse inference can be drawn at this stage.” However, counsel for respondent has pointed out that the facts of that case were different. There the Collector appointed the lambardar on 3-4-98, the Commissioner upheld this order on 27-8-99 and then Financial Commissioner also upheld it on 10-8-2000. Meanwhile, on 29-6-2000 a case was registered against the lambardar. In the present case, a pre- existing trial is underway, and Collector was bound to take note of this fact. Counsel for respondent has cited Tak ‘Ram’s case reported as 1998 (3) RCR (Civil) 90 and the ruling of Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2009 (2) LAR 106 titled Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana wherein it was held that even after acquittal the Collector has to go into facts and circumstances of the case to determine whether a candidate has an unblemished record. 5. I find upon perusing the record and Collector’s order, that he has passed a speaking order assessing the relative merits of candidates. Of course, he has considered as relevant the factum of registration of a criminal case against petitioners and the fact that it has been committed to trial. I find that this is essentially correct; it would have been perverse if the Collector had entirely ignored this fact. On the issue of residence of candidates and their availability in the village, petitioners have argued that Collector failed to arrive at a correct finding by appointing an advocate who practices in courts away from the village. I find that this is essentially correct; it would have been perverse if the Collector had entirely ignored this fact. On the issue of residence of candidates and their availability in the village, petitioners have argued that Collector failed to arrive at a correct finding by appointing an advocate who practices in courts away from the village. They cited the judgement of the Punjab & Haryana High Court High Court in Neeraj Kumar’s case reported as 2013 (4) RCR (Civil) 207 wherein Justice Rajive Bhalla held that “the availability of a lambardar, in the village is, therefore, a significant factor to be considered, while appointing a lambardar and if a question mark is raised upon a candidate’s availability in the village, the Collector would, necessarily, be required to consider and decide such an objection. It must follow that, where a person is in service whether government or private. This service may not by itself be a disqualification, but his availability in the village, would be a relevant factor to be considered by the Collector.” 6. In the present case the Collector has duly considered all facts placed before him including the question of residence, and the Commissioner has correctly refused to interference with this order since no illegality or perversity is found therein. Hence all the three petitions are dismissed. Announced. ---------0.B.S.0------------