JUDGMENT P. K. Mattoo, F. C.—This is a review petition against the orders of my learned predecessor dated 27-4-7! whereby he upheld the orders of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu dated 12-6-68 rejecting the application for the grant of Nautor to the petitioner. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the records of the case. 3. It was argued before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that my learned predecessor had made a mistake in deciding the case in accordance with the existing Nautor rules according to which no Nautor can be granted beyond 20 bighas of land and not according to the rules as applicable on 6-12-66 the first date of grant by the Deputy Commissioner or even on 12-6-68, the date on which the grant was ultimately rejected by the Deputy Commissioner. On behalf of the respondents it was argued that my learned predecessor had rightly rejected the revision filed before him. 4. In order to decide the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to briefly recapitulate the facts of the case. An area of 9 bishas and 5 Biswas was granted on 6-12-66 by the Deputy Commissioner to \ha petitioner. An appeal against this order was filed before the Commissioner who vide his order dated 28-2-68 accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner for retrial. After taking into consideration the facts brought to his notice by the parties, the Deputy Commissioner ultimately decided the case on 12-6-68 and rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the area owned by him was by any standard, sufficient to maintain him and also more than average land owned in Himachal Pradesh. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Deputy Commissioner, the parties came up in revision to the Financial Commissioner who vide his orders dated 27-4-71 rejected the revision petition and upheld the orders of the Deputy Commissioner. 5. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Deputy Commissioner, the parties came up in revision to the Financial Commissioner who vide his orders dated 27-4-71 rejected the revision petition and upheld the orders of the Deputy Commissioner. 5. It has been held in Kaluram and another v. Mehtab Bai and another, AIR 1955 Madhya Pradesh page 181 that "an order of remand implies reversal of the decision of the lower Court and reopens the whole case for retrial by the original Court except in regard to matters expressly or impliedly decided by the order of remand." I find myself in full agreement with the principle enunciated in this judgment. Once the order made by a Revenue Officer is set aside and is cot revived by in appeal, revision or otherwise through a subsequent order of a competent authority, it ceases to exist for all intents and purposes. The order made by the Deputy Commissioner on 6-12-66 was set aside in appeal by the Commissioner vide his order dated 28-2-68. These orders of the Commissioner were not modified or set aside in review, appeal, revision or otherwise and consequently became final with the effect that the Deputy Commissioners orders ceased to be in effect for all intents and purposes. 6-12-66 can, therefore, not be treated as the date of grant in the present case. 6. It has been held in Nar Singh Dass v. The Zamindars, Estate Rights Holders of Village Shawan, LLT 70 page 3, that "it would be the date of grant which would be material with a view to conclude as to under which of the Naulor Rules a particular case falls. It is the Nautor Rules in force at the time of grant of Nautor application that would be relevant in an appeal or revision." The rule laid down in this case is based on sound reasoning and 1 see no reason to differ from the views expressed therein. 7. In the present case since no subsisting grant was made on 12-6-68, the rules as in force on 12-6-68 cannot also be held to be applicable to case. In fact my learned predecessor has rightly disposed of the case in accordance with the rules in force on the date of disposal of the revision petition. Under these circumstances, I see no reason for interfering with the orders of my learned predecessor. The revision petition is dismissed. In fact my learned predecessor has rightly disposed of the case in accordance with the rules in force on the date of disposal of the revision petition. Under these circumstances, I see no reason for interfering with the orders of my learned predecessor. The revision petition is dismissed. Revision petition dismissed.