Learned counsel for the petitioner, by making reference to the qualification of petitioner as well as respondent No.2 as noticed by the Collector, made an attempt to show that the petitioner is more meritorious and hence, should have been appointed by the Collector as Lambardar of the village. The Commissioner, while interfering with the order passed by the Collector, took a view that the petitioner was more meritorious. Commissioner also noticed that the candidature of the petitioner was primarily rejected on the ground that he was found to be in illegal possession of Panchayat land, as per the order passed on 21.3.1996. The Commissioner has ignored this order simply on the ground that the petitioner was allowed to contest the Panchayat election and he remained Sarpanch of the Village from June 1998 to June 2003. Finding this to be contradictory, he has remanded the case for reconsideration to the Collector. The Financial Commissioner has rightly interfered with this order of remand by noticing that the petitioner was in illegal possession of the Panchayat land in the year 1995-96 and submission that this aspect was to be seen at the time of application i.e. in April 2005, would not make much difference. If a person has been in illegal possession of Panchayat land, then this fact would certainly go against him for appointment as Lambardar. The order passed by Collector did not suffer from any infirmity or perversity to call for interference by the
