2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone carefully through the record as well, file No. 207/2 C2007/84) of the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipurs office, there exists on page 6 a certified copy of the report of the Collector, Tonk, dated 25.3.50, which for purposes of the present case, may be accepted as the starting point of these proceedings, for it containts a comprehensive resume of the relevant facts. Shri Onkarlal was appointed as a Patel in village Devbarnya under orders of the Revenue Minister of the former State of Tonk, dated 12.2.40. Shri Onkarlal, however, upon finding the then political atmosphere uncongenial to his ideology and activities resigned from the Patelai and his resignation was accepted on 3.5.45. Both the villages Devli and Devbarnya are situated in very close proximity. The residents of these villages appear to have put up a request for appointment of Onkarlal as a village Patel. Onkarlal also came forward and desired this appointment. An inquiry was held in the matter by the Revenue Officers and the Collector, Tonk vide his reported, dated 25.3.50 recommended to the Commissioner, Jaipur that Onkarlal be appointed as a Patel in villages Devbarnya and Devli and be allowed a concession of As. 2 per rupee in his khata. The Commissioner after going through the report held that Partapa, Ramrakh and Gainda being the existing Patels of these villages were entitled to have their say in the matter and hence the Collector should inform them of his proposal, dated 25.3.50 and resubmit the papers to the Commissioner. The Collector complied with this direction and resubmitted the papers to the Commissioner with his report, dated 25.1.51- reiterating his view that Onkar should be appointed as a Patel in villages Devli and Devbarnya and be allowed a concession of Rs. 17/11/6 in his khata. The Commissioner heard the parties on 17.2.51 and returned the papers to the Collector inviting his attention to sec. 356 of the Land Revenue Code, Tonk which lays down that "The confirmation, appointment, punishment, suspension or dismissal of the Pateli-Deh shall rest with the Nazim of the Pargana, from whose decision an appeal shall lie to the Revenue Member." The Collector on receiving the ease re-examined it and resubmitted the same with his report, dated 13.3.51 wherein it was pointed out by him that the Collector enjoyed all the powers of a sub-Divisional Officer and that notification No. 6952, dated 17.8.48 of the former Rajasthan being till then in force authorised the Collector to appoint a village Patel (Item No. 76). It was further stated by the Collector that under the circumstances there was no question of giving any opinion but that the Collector could appoint a village Patel and it appears that in exercise of his power the Collector did appoint Onkar as a village Patel and for grant of a concession he recommended the case to the Commissioner for obtaining sanction of the Government. The Commissioner heard the parties as can be gathered from his order dated 29.8.51. In this order it has been made clear that the Collector had appointed Onkar as an additional Patel in exercise of his powers, that Onkar was responsible for effecting improvements in the village, that Onkar was eminently suited for the post of a village Patel and that the existing village Patels had no valid cause to complain against his appointment. The Commissioner thus fully approved the appointment of Onkar as a village Patel and agreeing with the Collector that Onkar was eligible to a concession of Rs. 17/11/6 forwarded the paper to the Revenue Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan, The Revenue Secretary returned the papers to the Commissioner vide letter No. F. 24 (231) Rev. II/51, dated 5.8.55 sying that "orders have been issued by the Govt. to the effect that the rules of the