JUDGMENT H. C. Dubey, F.C.—This revision petition has been filed under the Re-settlement and Rehabilitation of Bhakra Dam Oustees (Grant of Land) Scheme, 1971 (Shortly called the Scheme) .against an appellate order of the learned Commissioner, dated 12.9.1977. 2. Since there is no provision for a revision petition in the Scheme, I considered it necessary to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of admission. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the scheme has been framed by the Government under the provisions of rule 8-A of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968, and accordingly, the provisions of Rule 30 of the said rules would apply to the present case. He also stated that the procedure for the grant of nautor under the scheme is almost the same at is prescribed in the Nautor Rules, 1968. It was also urged by him that there is no specific clause provided in the scheme barring a revision petition against the orders of the lower authorities. It was argued that the Financial Commissioner has unfettered powers under Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act to call at any time for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by any Revenue Officer subordinate to him. By refering to the provisions of section 17 of the Land Revenue Act, the learned counsel tried to establish that in the absence of any provision for a revision petition under the scheme, the Financial Commissioner could hear the revision petition against the orders of the Divisional Commissioner with according to him was passed by the latter in his capacity as a Revenue Officer. On the point of the jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner, he cited the authorities contained in PLJ 1972 p. 443 and LLT 1968 p 182. Lastly, it was contended that in the interest of justice and equity the jurisdiction should be assumed by the Court liberally. 4. I have considered the above arguments of the learned counsel and have carefully gone through the provisions of the relevant rules/act. Lastly, it was contended that in the interest of justice and equity the jurisdiction should be assumed by the Court liberally. 4. I have considered the above arguments of the learned counsel and have carefully gone through the provisions of the relevant rules/act. Rule 8-A of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968,, (hereinafter called the Nautor Rules) read as under:— "Nothing under these rules, shall apply to the grant of land for the rehabilitation of persons displaced, as a result of anything done for any public purpose to be recognised as a public purpose for this rule, by the State Government. Grant of land for this purpose will be made according to the formal scheme approved by the State Government either generally or specificall for each project or scheme or other action entailing such displacement." 5. A plain reading of this rule would indicate that it— (i) renders provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Rules, 1968 inoperative in the case of grant of land for the rehabilitation of persons displaced as a. result of any thing done for any "public purpose", and (ii) provides for a formal scheme to be approved by the State Government. 6. It is in pursuance of the latter provision that a fromal scheme called the Re-settlement and Rehabilitotion of Bhakra Dam Oustees (Grant of Land) Schema 8971 (hereinafter shortly called as R. & R. Scheme) has been notified. In fact the preamable of this notification itself makes this point crystal clear. In other words, the R. & R. Scheme, 1971 is trammelled by the provisions of the original scheme contained in the Nautor Rules, though organically linked to it through the nexus of Rules 8-A thereof. 7. It is to be noted that whereas the original scheme of Nautor Rules provides both for appeals and revision under rules 28 and 30, there is no provision for revision in the R. & R. Scheme though there is one for appeals. If it were the intention of the State Government to make the provisions regarding appeals and revisions under the original scheme of Nautor Rules applicable to the R. & R. Scheme, it was not necessary to make specific provision for appeals under the latter. There is no room for doubt that the omission to provide for revision and review in the R. & R. Scheme was deliberate and not accidental. There is no room for doubt that the omission to provide for revision and review in the R. & R. Scheme was deliberate and not accidental. Any other interpretation would render the entire effort of the State Government self deating. In the circumstances, the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of rule 30 of the Nautor Rules would apply in the instant case cannot be accepted. 8. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that section 17 of the Land Revenue Act has an omnibus application is also vitiated by the same fallacy. The R. & R. Scheme and the original Nautor Land Rules both are in the nature of executive orders as defined in the Law Laxicon Dictonary— Scheme. Scheme may be of two kinds. They may embody subordinate legislation containing a body of rules binding on persons with whom they are concerned and in such a case if passed by a body having the necessary authority they will be enforceable by courts or other authorities and would have the force of law. But there may by another kind of scheme which are merely executive in nature and they do not contain any rules of conduct for anybody to follow. This will not have the force of law and will not be enforceable by courts or other authorities, as they lay down no rule of conduct which courts or other authorities may enforce. 9. The State Government was aware of the specific provisions in the Land Revenue Act and if they really intended that they be applied equally to these two scheme, there was no point in their going the whole hog of providing once specifically for appeals and revisions in the original scheme and next only for appeal in the subsequent one. The only interpretation one can put on the notificational issued by the State Government regarding the R. & R. Scheme would be that they did not want this executive scheme would be hampered by the dilatory and complicated provisions of the Land Revenue Act. The scheme was intended to meet the requirements of all specific situation and therefore, it had a limited temporal significance. 10. In view of the foregoing, I am afraid, the revision petition filed against the orders of the learned Commissioner is incompetent. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. 11. The learned counsel alongwith Sh. The scheme was intended to meet the requirements of all specific situation and therefore, it had a limited temporal significance. 10. In view of the foregoing, I am afraid, the revision petition filed against the orders of the learned Commissioner is incompetent. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. 11. The learned counsel alongwith Sh. K. S. Patiyal, counsel for Sh Sukh Ram petitioner in another case also argued the following cases on admission:— (i) Revenue Revision No. 124/77, Shri Tehku v. State and Kalapati. (ii) Revenue Revision No. 27/78, Sh. Sukh Ram v. Quadar Beg and State. 12. In these cases also, revision petition against the orders of the learned Commissioner under the R. & R. Scheme have been filed. In the light of my decision in this case, the petitions in these cases are also dismissed being not competent. 13. A copy of this order may also be placed on the case file in the above two cases. Orders to be communicated.