P L D (Rev (PLP)

Estate--‑Sub‑--division‑Two fards (lists of grantees) Prepared for Purpose of convenience do not mean that two sub‑divisions had been created. The Collector sanctioned what were described as the two Yards' of Pattis agreed to by the Lambardars. These two 'lards' were two statements containing the names of certain grantees in each list. This division of the clientale would be considered to be a division for purposes of convenience. The preparation of the two separate lists even when approved by the Collector, does not amount to creating two distinct sub divisions in the estate. A disqualification regarding the appointment of a Lam6ardar with reference to his ownership in a Patti would arise only if the village was divided into sub‑divisions and not where the list of land revenue payers had been prepared. ORDER H. A. MAJID, F. C.--‑I have examined the question whether this estate has been divided into sub‑divisions and have come to the conclusion that there has been no sub‑division so far There is no doubt that in the year 1937 the Collector sanctioned what were described as the two 'fards' of pattis agreed to by the Lambardars. These two Yards' were two statements con taining the names of certain grantees in each list. This division of the clientale would be considered to be a division for purposes of convenience. This opinion of mine is supported by the fact that an additional list also existed and was described as joint. The preparation of the two separate lists and one joint list of the clientale of the two Lambardars, even when approved by the Collectors does not amount to creating two distinct sub‑divisions in the estate. It is also clear that when the two said lists were approved by the Collector in 1937, there was still some unallotted land in the estate. It must be assumed that temporary cultivation leases of that land were being given out and the lease money etc. must have been collected. There is nothing to indicate that such lands bad been included in any of the two sub‑divisions referred to by the petitioner. A disqualification regarding the appointment of a Lambardar with reference to his ownership in a patti would arise only if the village has been divided into sub‑divisions and not where the lists of land revenue payers been prepared as it was done in 1937 in this case. The result is that I do not find anything wrong in the decision announced by my predecessor on 4th June 1953 This petition for review is accordingly dismissed. Announced. A. H. Petition dismissed.