' The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the post of Lambardar of Chak No, 685-GB, Tehsil Toba Tek Singh, fell vacant due to the death of the Lambardar Ali Muhammad. The Collector appointed Barkat Ali, the present respondent, as Lambardar vide his order dated 27-3-1973. The petitioner agitated the matter before the Commissioner, Sargodha on ground that the land in the Patti to which the Lambardari pertained was chiefly owned by the proprietors and as such the case was required to be decided on consideration of primogeniture under rule 19 (2) of the Land Revenue Rules. The petitioner also produced a statement prepared by the Patwari to establish that 51 % of the area in Patti is owned by the proprietors. The Commissioner remanded the case to AC/Collector, Toba Tek Singh, with the following orders :- "In case the statement now prepared by the Patwari is incorrect his (Collector, Toba Singh) order under appeal is upheld. In case the proprietary area in the Sub-Division in question shown in the Patwari's statement as 51 % is correct, then the AC/Collector, Toba Tek Singh should summon the parties and decided the case afresh according to rules on the subject."
' In pursuance of the orders of learned Commissioner, dated 29-5-1973, the AC/Collector re-verified the appointment of land of the Patti and came to the conclusion that in the Sub-Division (Patti) more than 50% of the land was owned by the proprietors. He accordingly accepted the claim of the respondent as being the son of deceased Lambardar, and appointed him to the post. These orders of the Collector, dated 31-1-1979 were again challenged before the Commissioner, Sargodha. A further re-verification of the area owned by the proprietors was carried out by the learned Commissioner and he reached the final conclusion that the Patti to which the Lambardari pertained was chiefly owned by the State. The learned Commissioner, vide his order dated 19.8- 1979, held that the matter had to be decided in terms of the orders of his predecessor, dated 29-5- 1973, which in he absence of any appeal or revision had become final. He accordingly appointed Barkat Ali as Lambardar of the village.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts of the case. I have no doubt in my mind that the orders of the Commissioner dated 29-5-1973 had attained finally, since they were not agitated either in an appeal or in revision. The only issue left to be decided A was as to whether the land in the Patti was chiefly owned by the State or the proprietors. Since it was established that the land in Patti was chiefly owned by the State, the orders appointing Barkat Ali Lambardar were to be maintained. The decision of the learned Commissioner, dated 194-1979 therefore, in order and is upheld in revision.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to raise the point that the Patti has no legal existence, since it is not shown to have been created by the orders of the Board of Revenue. Since this Patti has existed for a long time it is to be assumed that it was so created by the competent orders. In the absence of .Proof to the contrary, the long usage has the presumption of truth. This argument is, therefore, dismissed as being without any substance.