P L D 1961 W (PLP)

Government land ..264 acres Proprietary area .332 acres Total .596 acres In addition there is a report dated 16‑2‑1959 by the village Patwari and attested by the Colony Naib‑Tahsildar which gives the constitution of this patti on 29‑10‑1949 when the Lambardari fell vacant as follows:‑ Government land ..402 acres Proprietary area .194 acres Total ..596 acres Keeping in view these conflicting reports my learned pre decessor called for a further report from the District Officers. This is dated 8‑5‑1960 and gives an entirely different picture. It reads as follows:‑ "The entire Chak 662 is owned by Government. There is no proprietary area in it. The Government land left out of these two pattis i.e. in 1936 was placed in patti mushtarka. Afterwards it was steadily auctioned but is still included in Patti mushtarka. In reply to question No. 2 which was framed by my predecessor as follows:‑ "What was the position of the Chak as a whole and patti‑wise (if there were two separate pattis) i.e. the extent of proprietary areas as well as that of the area owned by Government in the Chak and patti‑wise at the time when the Collector passed his order as well as at the time when Allah Ditta died, his date of death being probably. 29‑10‑49", it is stated as given below:‑ "The entire Chak is owned by Government. It does not contain any old proprietary area. The position was the same on 29‑10‑1949 when the Collector issued his orders." Apparently these are highly conflicting reports and it is not possible for me to determine the exact position. I would in these circumstances accept the revision petition and remand the case to the Collector with the direction that it should be clearly determined what was the extent or the proprietary and Government area in this patti when the Lambardari fell vacant. In case the appoint ment has become hereditary on account of the proprietary area being in excess of the area owned by Government the respondent's appointment will be upheld; otherwise the case of the two candidates will have to be reconsidered on merits. The connected revenue appeal is a simpler matter and has resulted from the efforts of Inayatullah to oust his rival from the patti to which the Lambardari relates so that he i.e., his rival may not be considered for the appointment. When the original ‑ dispute regarding this Lambardarr arose in 1939 and when too Inayatullah was a party, the entire land of the estate was placed in one patti by the Collector. He, however, observed at that time that a modification of the arrangement may become necessary when fresh ‑appointments are made. When the present dispute arose after the death of K. S. Allah Ditta, Inayatullah's land was included in the other patti, but the Collector in order to give him a chance transferred it to patti Allah Ditta. The Collector how ever, held as already observed that Nawab Ali was entitled to succeed on his hereditary claims. Thereupon Inayatullah resorted to the questionable method of having the land of the respondent. taken out of the Patti in dispute and eventually succeeded. As already observed by the learned Commissioner this success was based on misleading reports by the Revenue Officers below and the learned Commissioner has rightly set it aside so that Nawab Ali's land still remains in patti Khan Sahib Allah Ditta Wali. I have no reasons to differ from the order of the learned Commis sioner and the appeal regarding the constitution of the pattis stands dismissed. K. M. A. Case remanded Case remanded.