This revision petition has been filed under Section 17 of the HP. Land Revenue Act against an order of the Commissioner (Revenue) Himachal Pradesh dated 23.10.2001 whereby he has upheld an order of the Collector Distt. Kullu dated 31.10.1986.

2. Brief facts of the case are that after the death of one Sh. Kesho Ram who was the Kardar of Devta Chaman Rishi, Sh. Dashmi Ram, the father of the present petitioner, was appointed as the Kardar. After the death of Sh. Dashmi Ram, the Distt. Collector Kullu, on the recommendations of the Naib Tehsildar Kullu, appointed Sh. Dinu, the present respondent, as the Kardar vide an order dated 31.10.1986. The present petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the learned Commissioner (revenue) HP. The appeal was filed on the grounds that the petitioner has applied through his mother for appointment as Kardar vide an application dated 27.7.1984 after the demise of his father but the Distt. Collector Kullu did not consider the same. According to the petitioner he was entitled for the appointment as the Kardar on the basis of his hereditary claim and Wajib-ul-arj1. It was further claimed that no opportunity was granted to him by the Distt. Collector and also that the respondent had agreed before the Distt. Collector that as and when the petitioner attains majority, he will relinquish the post of Kardar in favour of the petitioner. After hearing the matter, the learned Commissioner dismissed the appeal vide an order dated 23 10.2001 and it is against this order the petitioner has Tiled the present petition.

3. The record of the courts below was called for and examined. Both the parties filed their written arguments which were taken on record and perused.

4. According to the written arguments field by the petitioner, the petitioner who was minor at the time of his fathers death had applied to the Distt. Collector Kullu to be appointed as the Kardar as per his hereditary claim and the provisions of Wajib-ul-arj. The Distt. Collector Kullu, however, appointed the respondent as the Kardar on the recommendations of the Naib-Tehsildar Kullu vide an order dated 31.10.1986 by ignoring the claim of the petitioner. According to the petitioners a plain reading of the Wajib-ul-arj leaves no room for doubt that the post of Kardar is to be filed up on the basis of hereditary claim. It has further been claimed that the Kardar is to be filed up on the basis of hereditary claim. It has further been claimed that the Kardar can be removed from the post after following a procedure mentioned in the Wajib-ul-arj and the same can be sought only by the worshipers of deity. The petitioner further claimed that the entire process of recommending the name of respondent for the post of the Kardar goes against the provision of the Wajib-ul-arj. A similar matter titled "khekh Ram versus Yub Raj decided by the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 2.7.1988 has been referred to and a copy thereof supply (sic-supplied) along with the written arguments which is placed on record.

5. In the written arguments submitted on behalf of the respondent it has been averred that the orders of the Dsitt Collector Kullu as well as those of the Commissioner (revenue) are in accordance with the provisions of the Wajib-ul-arj1. It has been claimed that all procedure were followed for the appointment of the respondent as the Kardar of Devta Chaman Rishi after the death of Sh. Dashmi Ram who was the real brother of the present respondent. It has further been averred that the appoint of the respondent was made after a thorough inquiry by the Tehsildar who submitted the report in favour of the respondent. According to the respondent the present petitioner as well as his brothers are restopped by their acts and conduct as they did not file an application for the appointment of the Kardar as they had themselves stated before the Tehsildar that the respondent is working as the Kardar after death of Sh. Dashmi Ram-Having examined the recor