ORDER R.S. Shukla, Member This is a case in which several parties are interested in the settlement of certain land alleged to be village service land of village Teka, tahsil and district Raigarh. The facts of the case are rather complicated and may be stated before dealing with the issues involved. The admitted facts are that Sardharam son of Sanyasi was the recorded Nariha (Grazier) of village Teka who died in 1944 and was succeeded by his son Banshi who also died on 26-8-54. As the office was vacant, two candidates, namely, Raghunandan and Sadhram son of Birsingh applied for appointment as Nariha. The Naib-Tahsildar by his order dated 18-11-54 in Rev. Case No. 9/VIII-3/54-55 selected Raghunandan. The order of the Naib-Tahsildar led to a series of litigation in which various orders were passed on different dates as follows: 23-2-55. On an appeal by Sadhram the order of the Naib-Tahsildar dated 18-11-54 was set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the ground that the Naib-Tahsildar did not make proper inquiry and amended the ease for further inquiry on the spot in consultation with the village patel. 28-3-56. The Tahsildar, who dealt with the case on remand, decided that Sadhram was working as village Nariha after the death of Banshi on 26-8-54. He further observed that as Government had abolished the post of Nariha no appointment by him was necessary and as the land was to be settled with the last occupant thereof, he declared Sadhram as the person with whom the land in question may be settled. 3-4-56. The Nistar Officer-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner acting under government's general instructions settled the village service lands with Sadhram u/s 59 (3) of the M.P. A.P. R. Act. 7-7-56. Balram and Laxman, sons of Raghunandan (since deceased) and present Appellants, went up in appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer on 9-4-56 against the order of the Tahsildar dated 28-3-56 who passed orders on 7-7-56 declining to interfere with the order of the Tahsildar on the ground that, in the meantime, the Nistar Officer-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner had already, on 3-4-56, settled the disputed land with Sadhram. 10-12-56. 10-12-56. On a second appeal by Balram and Laxman, the Deputy Commissioner set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer on the ground that he failed to exercise his jurisdiction inasmuch as he was not called upon to deal with the order of the Nistar Officer but with the order of the Tahsildar dated 28-3-56. He, therefore, remanded the case to the Tahsildar for fresh disposal in accordance with the law and the directions of the previous Sub-Divisional Officer dated 23-2-55. 25-5-57. The Tahsildar, Shri Naidu, in dealing with the case after remand by the Deputy Commissioner again held that it was not necessary to appoint a Nariha as the post had been abolished by the Government on 4-10-56. In regard to the claim of possession of the village service land he decided, after recording some evidence, that Mst. Jhunkuni, the daughter of deceased Banshi, was the legal heir and successor to claim the village service land held by Banshi. It may be recapitulated that Sardharam, the original Nariha, died in 1944, Banshi died on 26-8-54, Sadhram son of Birsingh died on 16-5-56 and Raghunandan on 19-1-56. The present appeal before me has been filed against the order of the Nistar Officer dated 3-4-56 by Balram and Laxaman, minor sons of Raghunandan, and the Respondent is Mst. Sundarmati, widow of Sadhram. The law relating to the appointment of Nariha in the Merged Territories, in which the disputed land lies, may briefly be reviewed at this stage. According to paragraph 65 of the Wajib-ul-arz of Raigarh, the Nariha is a village servant. This para, reads as follows: On 16-3-49, the C.P. States Land Tenure Order, 1949, came into force in the Merged Territories. Clauses 20-A to 20-G were inserted in this Order by the Amending Act of 1950. These clauses deal with matters relating to the village service land. Clause 20-G reads as follows: 20-G. If a Revenue Officer declares that the services rendered by a village servant are no longer required, he shall declare such village servant to be a raiyat of his village service land, and shall fix the rent to be paid by him. Clause 27 of this Order, which provided for savings, reads as follows: 27 (1). Clause 27 of this Order, which provided for savings, reads as follows: 27 (1). Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, rule, agreement, custom or any entry in the Wajib-ul-arz to the contrary, this Order shall prevail in respect of all matters for which provision has been made therein. It is further stated in Clause (ii) that "save as provided in Sub-section (1) (just cited) any entry in Wajib-ul-arz which was in force before the commencement of his order will prevail unless it is inconsistent with any provision contained in the Order". In short, after 16-3-49 the Land Tenure Order was to prevail in matters specifically provided therein while the Wajib-ul-arz and other local laws immediately in force before the Orders were to be continued in operation unless they were repugnant to the said Order. The M.P. A.P. R. Act came into force on 31-3-51. It did not repeal the Land Tenure Order but Section 89 laid down as follows: S. 89. The provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act. In this connection reference may also be made to Government Memo. No. 364-4-561-C.R./XXVIII, dated 4-10-54 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of the Merged Territories. It appears that since the previous instructions of Land Reforms Department in regard to village-service land were not acted upon by the Deputy Commissioners or by the Land Reforms staff in 1951, the Government, in the above memo, directed as follows: The Maghis, Graziers etc. are not village servants and, therefore, they should not be recognised as such by the Nistar Officers. The details of the land which are held by these persons should be furnished by the Nistar Officers to you (Deputy Commissioner) and you may pass an order under Sections 20-A to 20-G of the C.P. States Land Tenure Order, 1949 that their services are no longer required and the Nistar Officers should settle the land with such persons u/s 89 (3) of the M.P. A.P. R. Act as powers under that section have been delegated to them. We will now turn to the facts of the present case. We will now turn to the facts of the present case. The Nistar Officer-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner's order under appeal shows that in settling the disputed land with Sadhram be was wholly guided by the order of the Tahsildar dated 28-3-56 declaring that Sadhram was the last holder of the village service land. The Nistar Officer-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner did not make any inquiry himself and if he intended to rely on the order of the Tahsildar he should have ascertained whether the order of the Tahsildar had become conclusive and final. As a matter of fact, the time for appeal against the order of the Tahsildar had not expired on 3-4-56 when the Nistar Officer passed the impugned order. This was in spite of stay application and the request by the appellants that they intended to file an appeal against the order of the Tahsildar. The chain of litigation noted in para. 2 above would show that the Tahsildar's order dated 28-3-56 was subsequently set aside in appeal and ceased to carry any legal authority. Obviously, therefore, the order of the Nistar Officer under appeal cannot stand particularly because he himself did not make any inquiry as to who was in possession of the disputed land. It may further be observed that the application of Section 59 (3), M.P. A.P. R. Act was also incorrect inasmuch as in the very opening lines of his judgment he has stated that he was dealing with the village-service land and not with the land held by a person "from the ex-proprietor on favourable terms for services rendered by him" which forms the subject-matter of Section 59 (3). The distinction between Sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Section 59 ibid was not observed by the learned Nistar Officer. Keeping in view the fact of the case the appropriate section to be applied should have been Section 59 (2). It would not be sufficient only to set aside on the above grounds the order of the Nistar Officer. It appears to me that there has been considerable confusion in appreciating the issues of the case resulting in the multiplicity of the litigation and the matter needs further examination. It would not be sufficient only to set aside on the above grounds the order of the Nistar Officer. It appears to me that there has been considerable confusion in appreciating the issues of the case resulting in the multiplicity of the litigation and the matter needs further examination. After the setting aside of the Naib-Tahsildar's order dated 18-11-54, the case was almost continually remanded by the Sub-Divisional Officer and later by the Deputy Commissioner for the specific object of appointing a Nariha in the vacant post, while, on the other hand, the Tahsildar Shri Naidu, all along took the view that since the post of Nariha had been abolished by the Government, no appointment was necessary. He, however, voluntarily took upon himself the responsibility of declaring as to who was the last holder of the village service land. In point of fact, it was none of his duties to give a declaration of that kind. The power of settling lands either u/s 59 (3) or of settling lands held without permission were entrusted to the. Nistar Officers (see Government Notification cited above and series of Government Notifications culminating the Notification No. 3644-561 C.R. XXVIII dated 4-10-54.) If the question was to determine as to who was the holder of disputed land it was for the Nistar Officer to have recorded a finding and to have acted accordingly. It was none of the business of the Tahsildar to take such a decision "from the equity point of view" as he has put it. The Tahsildar's reference to Memo, dated 4-10-54 as an authority for the date on which Government abolished the post of Nariha is also not correct. The Notification dated 4-10-54 is nothing but a direction to the Deputy Commissioners to abolish certain posts in accordance with their powers u/s 20-G of the Land Tenure Order. I am not aware whether such an order u/s 20-G was actually passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Raigarh. However, it is not necessary to dilate on this point as subsequent discussion would show the Govt. Memo, dated 4-10-54 is not relevant for the decision of this case. There is little doubt that Nariha, according to Clause 65 of the Wajib-ul-arz of Raigarh, was a village servant and was holding his land in lieu of village service. From the legal position stated in paras. Memo, dated 4-10-54 is not relevant for the decision of this case. There is little doubt that Nariha, according to Clause 65 of the Wajib-ul-arz of Raigarh, was a village servant and was holding his land in lieu of village service. From the legal position stated in paras. 5 to 8 above, it would appear that the Land Tenure Order, as amended by Amending Act of 1950, superceded Clause 65 of the Wajib-ul-arz only to the extent that the appointment and removal of Nariha, with effect from the date of the Amending Act, was to be governed not by the provisions of Clause 65, but by the provisions of clauses 20-A to 20-G of the Land Tenure Order. For, as stated above, vide Clause 27 (ii) of the Land Tenure Order, the Wajib-ul-arz was to be superceded only to the extent of its inconsistency with the provisions of the Land Tenure Order. The M.P. A.P. R Act, which came into force from 1-4-51, also did not wholly repeal the Land Tenure Order but superceded the latter only so far as it may be inconsistent with the former. Section 59 (2) of the M.P. A.P. R. Act reads as follows: 59 (2). Any person holding land in a village for service as a village servant by whatever name called shall be deemed to hold it from the State subject to such terms and conditions as he was entitled or subject to immediately before the date of vesting. It would be seen that Section 59 (2) ibid does no more than recognise the village servants of the Merged Territories, by whatever name called, as the holders of the service-land from the State on such terms and conditions as governed them before the date of vesting. In other words, if a person was holding land for village service, as distinguished from the service of the proprietor, then he was to be treated w. e. f. 1-4-51 as a village-servant holding land from the State. Section 59 (2) did not, in my opinion, take away the power of the Deputy Commissioner under Clause 20-G of the Land Tenure Order. Section 59 (2) did not, in my opinion, take away the power of the Deputy Commissioner under Clause 20-G of the Land Tenure Order. To put it differently, in spite of the provisions of Section 59 (2) the Deputy Commissioner could declare, under Clause 20-G of the Land Tenure Order, that the service rendered by a particular village servant was no longer required and could proceed to declare him a raiyat of the village-service land, as such an action would not be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 59 (2). In this case, however, we need go no further for it is conceded by the parties and it is also held by the Tahsildar in his order dated 25-5-57, that after the death of Banshi on 26-8-54 no person was appointed Nariha of the village The parties relied on the khasra entry in the year 1951-52 for the statement that Banshi was appointed Nariha by the order of the Naib-Tahsildar dated 2-2-51. This order could not, however, be produced before me but I take the parties at their words for the sake of argument. After the death of Banshi it was open for the State to appoint or not to appoint a Nariha. It appears that the State did not choose to appoint any one. In 1954 the appointment of Nariha under the provisions of the Land Tenure Order was to be made if necessary by a Revenue Officer. The post could not be filled in by any rule of succession or under any other law. It was, therefore, wrong for the Tahsildar to say in relation to the disputed land that Mst. Jhunkini was the legal heir and successor of Banshi or for widow of Sadhram to say that since her husband was for sometime a Nariha she was entitled to succeed to the village service land. The village-service land passes only to the successor-in-office and the successor is to be appointed by a Revenue Officer, and need not necessarily be a person related to the deceased Nariha. From the facts stated above, it would, therefore, appear that on 31-3-51, when the M.P. A.P. R. Act came into force, Banshi was the recorded Nariha of village Teka. On that date the post of Nariha had not been abolished. From the facts stated above, it would, therefore, appear that on 31-3-51, when the M.P. A.P. R. Act came into force, Banshi was the recorded Nariha of village Teka. On that date the post of Nariha had not been abolished. By operation of law, that is, by virtue of the provisions of Section 59 (2) Banshi became automatically the village servant and would be deemed to have held the disputed land from the State as village-service land. When Banshi died on 26-8-54 the village service land would have passed to his successor-in-office, but since no successor was appointed it would be deemed that the land was not officially allotted to any one. Any person who occupied the disputed land thereafter was, therefore, a mere trespasser or an encroacher. Although I am not in possession of the order of the Deputy Commissioner abolishing the post of Nariha u/s 20-G, Land Tenure Order, this much is clear that the post must have come to be abolished sometime after 4-10-54 in pursuance of the Government memo, cited above. Thus when the post came to be abolished there was no official Nariha and the question of settling the service-land with him in raiyati rights u/s 20-G did not arise. If Bansi had not died two things would have happened; either, Bansi would have continued as village servant u/s 59 (2) of the M.P. A.P. R Act or, in case the Deputy Commissioner considered the post unnecessary and abolished it u/s 20-G, Land Tenure Order, the village service-land would have been settled with Banshi in raiyati rights. In the absence of Banshi and in the absence of any one's appointment as successor-in-office to Banshi, there was obviously no need to settle the disputed land u/s 20-G, ibid. Similarly, if the post of Nariha has been abolished, the question of filling a vacant post did not also arise. The claim of succession according to personal law is wholly out of order and the Tahsildar was quite wrong in introducing unnecessary and irrelevant controversy in this respect. In the light of above analysis of facts and legal position, it would appear that the various proceedings in the revenue Courts below have been in the nature of much ado about nothing and deserved to be quashed as they are likely to keep alive unnecessary controversy. In the light of above analysis of facts and legal position, it would appear that the various proceedings in the revenue Courts below have been in the nature of much ado about nothing and deserved to be quashed as they are likely to keep alive unnecessary controversy. The disputed land after the death of Bansi on 26-3-54 and after, the abolition of.the post of Nariha became government land without anybody's claim on it. It is now open to State Government to allot it to any one in accordance with such rules of allotment as Govt, might have framed. The order of the Nistar Officer-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 3-4-53 as also the various orders of the Tahsildar, the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Deputy Commissioner as noted in para. 2 above are quashed. The disputed land shall be treated as having vested in Government and the State would be free to settle it with any parson on such terms and conditions as it may prescribe. Ordered accordingly.