Order This is a revision petition filed under rule 30 of the H.P. Nautor Land Rules, 1968 (hereinafter called the Rules) against the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Simla, dated 6-10-1976. 2. I have heard the parties and have studied the records of the case. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Revenue Assistant, Theog in his order dated 1-8-1973, sanctioned 6-17 bighas of land to the respondent, Shri Sadh Ram. The area granted is comprised in khasra Nos. 198/1 and 236 measuring 1-i and 5-16 bighas respectively and is situated in village Koti. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order of the Revenue Assistant before the Deputy Commissioner, Simla who reduced the grant in respect of Khasra No. 198/1 by 11 biswas vide his orders dated 20-6-75. Against this order a revision petition was filed by the petitioner before the learned Commissioner who dismissed the same by his order dated 6-10-1976 upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Simla. It is against this order of the learned Commissioner that this revision petition has been filed before me. 4. Arguments addressed by the parties were heard. The only ground pressed by the attorney for the petitioner before me is that . whereas the respondent actually owned more than 20 bighas of land, in his application for nautor he had stated that he possessed only 6-7 bighas, and thus the grant of nautor was obtained by concealment of material facts. In fact, the respondent was not eligible even to apply for nautor. The attorney for the petitioner also produced copies of excerpts of Jamabandi for the year 1972-73 in respect of village Koti relating to the land owned by the respondent. The respondent, in rebuttal, stated that he owned only about 18 bighas of land and that the allegation that he had more than 20 bighas of land was baseless. 5. I have considered the arguments of both the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Perusal of the excerpts of the Jamabandi for the year 1972-73 reveals that the respondent owned 16-4 bighas of land whereas in his application for grant of nautor he stated his holding to be only 6-7 bighas. 5. I have considered the arguments of both the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Perusal of the excerpts of the Jamabandi for the year 1972-73 reveals that the respondent owned 16-4 bighas of land whereas in his application for grant of nautor he stated his holding to be only 6-7 bighas. It was obviously due to concealment of this material fact that he succeeded in securing the grant of 6-17 bighas of land which was subsequently reduced in appeal to 6-6 bighas. If the area of the revised grant is included, the land holding of the respondent comes to 22-10 bighas. Rule 6 of the Nautor Rules prescribes a ceiling of 20 bighas for the grant of Nautor and the first proviso to this rule restricts the grant of Nautor for agricultural and horticultural purposes to the area by which the total holding of the applicant falls short by 20 bighas. The order of the Revenue Assistant, Theog sanctioning 6-17 bighas of land and that of the Deputy Commissioner, sanctioning reduced area of 6-6 bighas cannot, therefore, be allowed to stand, being violative of rule 6 of the Nautor Rules. 6. I find from the record that the petitioner was not an objector before the sanctioning authority. He, therefore, had no right of appeal in view of the ruling of the H. P. High Court in case "Percy Chauhan v. State and another" [Special issue of Indian Law Reports, Himachal Series (1978-79)]. However, notwithstanding his apparent lack of right of appeal, the petitioner has brought to notice that the respondent had concealed relevant material facts in his application regarding his land holding. These material facts are of crucial importance, as these would help to determine his eligibility or otherwise for grant of Nautor. Such concealment of material facts is tantamount to misleading the revenue agency and committing a fraud on it and cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed. In view of this, I take notice of the matter in exercise of my powers under rule 30 of the Rules and proceed to determine this case suo moto on merit. 7. When a basic dishonesty has been committed while applying for Nautor land by suppressing vital material facts, that itself should be sufficient to bar the applicant from any favourable consideration on his application. 7. When a basic dishonesty has been committed while applying for Nautor land by suppressing vital material facts, that itself should be sufficient to bar the applicant from any favourable consideration on his application. The respondent in the present case had already a holding of 16-4 bighas of land as has been established from excerpts of Jamabandi, whereas he declared his land holding to be only 6-7 bighas. This position has not and obviously could not be controverted by the respondent. Had he declared his correct land holding initially, he still would have been eligible to Nautor of 3-16 bighas, to make his holding upto 20 bighas, the limit permissible under the Nautor Rules, But he preferred to conceal facts and resorted to making false statements in his application. 8. I have given considerable thought to the question whether the objections raised by a person who was not an objector initially before the sanctioning authority but preferred the objections at a later stage should be rejected out of hand. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has given its pronouncement in this regard in "Percy Chauhan v. State and another9 referred to above. The Revenue Officers will naturally treat with scant respect vexatious or frivolous objection(s) affecting the interests of an individual which pre not brought to their notice at the right time. The objector is expected to be vigilant about his interests or those of the village community from the very beginning. However, where objections even at a later stage than the preliminary one, reveal that nautor has been obtained by fraud or concealment of crucial material facts, I see no bar to the superior revenue officers taking cognizance of such objections by exercising the powers vested in them under rule 30 of the Rules, suo moto, especially when the objections, if sustained, do not personally benefit the objector. To take no notice of fraud etc. when this is brought to their notice would be tantamount to abdicating the responsibilities enjoined upon them. They would thus be duty-bound to take notice of such objections which revealed fraud etc. and at the same time did not bring personal material benefit to those who raised these objections. As a matter of fact, the petitioners move in the present case has prevented the wrongful alienation of government land to an ineligible individual. 9. They would thus be duty-bound to take notice of such objections which revealed fraud etc. and at the same time did not bring personal material benefit to those who raised these objections. As a matter of fact, the petitioners move in the present case has prevented the wrongful alienation of government land to an ineligible individual. 9. In view of the above reasons, I quash all the orders passed in this case by the Revenue Assistant, Theog, the Deputy Commissioner, Simla and the learned Commissioner, Simla. Since a patta has already been granted, I refer the matter to the Secretary (Law) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for arbitration. 10. To be communicated.