1. In this case certain tankbed lands were granted on Darkhast to the plaintiff's father in 1894 and pattah was issued. This grant is in contravention of the Board's Standing Order No. 15 which lays down that tankbed lands are to be dealt with under, the Board's Standing Order No. 16. Under the latter order tankbed lands are to be divided into plots and sold by auction. In 1904 the Collector cancelled the pattah on the ground that the plaintiff 's father had obtained the land by fraud. The plaintiff then brought the present suit to have his pattah confirmed. The defendant, the Secretary of State for India, in his written statement alleged that the assignment of the land on pattah was in contravention of the Board's Standing Order No. 15, that the plaintiffs father obtained his pattah by fraud and collusion with the village officers, and that as the assignment of the land had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation it was illegal and not binding upon the defendant. It seems clear that the defendant's case in the written statement was that, the grant was liable to be set aside, not because it was irregular, but because it had been brought about by fraud. The District Judge has found that there was no fraud and this finding of fact is binding upon us and is really sufficient for the disposal of the case. It is, however, argued that the defendant meant to contend that he was entitled to cancel the grant because it was opposed to Board's Standing Order No. 15. Assuming this to be so we are of opinion that the grant is not liable to be cancelled. The disposal, of the tankbed lands is not prohibited. All that the rules lay down is taat the tankbed lands shall be disposed of in particular manner. It is also concerned that a Tahsildar--it was a Tahsildar who granted the Darkhast in the present case--has power to dispose of the tankbed lands. The Tahsildar having power to dispose of the lands, in suit disposed of them in a manner not warranted by the rules whether owing to a mistake as to the nature of the lands; or owing to a misapprehension of the rules., There is no question of any fraud. In due course pattah was issued to the grantee of the lands. There is no suggestion that the pattah was issued conditionally. In Collector of Salem v. Rengappa 12 M.p 404 it was observed as follows:'It is not pretended that the pattah issued to the plaintiff was issued conditionally or that it was issued by an officer not competent to act in the matter. Nor is it alleged in the written statement that there was any fraud practised by the plaintiff on the defendant or the Collector. The case was simply one of mistake; the Tahsildar would not have issued the pattah had he known all the facts. In our opinion, allegation and proof of such mistake do not justify the cancelment of a pattah issued by a competent officer in favour of one who has come into occupation of the land tinder it; when once possession has been taken under a pattah unconditionally issued by a competent officer, the pattahdar can, we think, be evicted only under the provisions of the Revenue Act.'
2. The same principle is followed in Periaroyalu Reddi v. Royalu Reddi 18 M.h 434. Following these decisions we are of opinion that the Collector was not justified in cancelling the pattah in the present case.
3. The appeal is dismissed with costs.