ORDER 1. In this order I would dispose of both the review cases as they refer to similar facts and points in issue. 2. Briefly speaking the facts of the case are that Shri Rama Nand and Shri Kishori Lai had originally applied before the Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu for sanction of Nautor lands for 9-6 bighas and 9-12 bighas respectively in the Revenue Estate Milion. The Deputy Commissioner in separate orders dated 25th May, 1964 sanctioned Nautor in favour of both these persons of areas as applied for by them. Shri Rama Nand was thus sanctioned Nautor in Kharsa No. 1015/83/1 and Shri Kishori Lal in Khasra No. 1015/83/2. While Shri Rama Nand and Kishori Lal had applied for land in village Milion, the other two persons, namely Shri Jiwanu Ram and Shri Dhan Sukh who were harijans had applied for Nautor in the same area and their applications had been submitted prior to the applications of Shri Rama Nand and Shri Kishori Lal. 3. Since Shri Jiwanu Rams case had been decided favourably by the Deputy Commissioner, he went in appeal before the Financial Commissioner (there was no Divisional Commissioner at that time). The learned Additional Financial Commissioner for a fresh decision by giving opportunity to all the parties to present their cases. The Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu them in his order dated 29414967 considered the applications of all the four persons. He then decided that the previous allotments to Shri Rama Nand, Shri Kishori Lai should be reduced to 5 bighas each. He simultaniously sanctioned Nautor in favour of Shri Jiwanu Ram and Shri Dhan Sukh at the rate of 2 bighas each. 4. Since this reduced allotments of S/Shri Rama Nand and Kishori Lal, they went in appeal before the Divisional Commissioner against these orders of the Deputy Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner in order dated 23-3-1968 remanded all the cases to the Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu for reconsideration. The Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu again went into the facts of the cases. He then passed order dated the 15th July, 1969 confirming his previous order dated 29-11-1967. He further observed in the said order that Shri Kishori Lal had not so far been given possession of the land ( 2-12 bighas) as earlier allotted to him (by his order dated 25-5-1964). He then passed order dated the 15th July, 1969 confirming his previous order dated 29-11-1967. He further observed in the said order that Shri Kishori Lal had not so far been given possession of the land ( 2-12 bighas) as earlier allotted to him (by his order dated 25-5-1964). Since Shri Kishori Lal and Rama Nand were brothers the possession of 9-16 bighas earlier given to Shri Rama Nand should now be evenly divided between two brother in terms of his subsequent orders dated 29-11-1967 and the remaining area of 0-4 bighas should be allotted to them now to make up their dues. 5. Both Shri Rama Nand and Shri Kishori Lai went in appeal before Divisional Commissioner against this order of the Deputy Commissioner, in his detailed order dated the 15th May, 1970 considered the claims and rights of all the four persons on marits. His decision then was to sanction Nautor in favour of these persons as follows ;— 1. Shri Kishori Lal 7-10 bighas. 2. Shri Rama Nand 4-0 bighas. 3. Shri Jiwanu Ram 4-0 bighas. 4. Shri Dhan Sukh 2-0 bighas. 6. The Divisional Commissioner also observed that there were still 102 frees standing on the pieces of land now allotted to S/Shri Kishori Lai and Rama Nand in the scale of 2-13 bighas each. This additional 2-10 bighas was sanctioned to them each on the specific condition that the trees would not be cut. 7. S/Shri Rama Nand and Kishori Lai again went the Financial Commissioner against this order of the Divisional Commissioner asking for restoration of the original grant as initially sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner on the 25th May, 1964. 8. The learned Financial Commissioner in his order dated the 26th August, 1971 decided these appeals and upheld the order of the learned Divisional Commissioner dated the 15th May, 1970. S/Shri Kishori Lal and Rama Nand then preferred a Review petition before the Financial Commissioner against his order dated the 26th August, 1971. the then learned Financial Commissioner considered the case on 10th December, 1976. He then remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Simla to make specific inquiry whether all the four concerned parties namely, S/Shri Rama Nand, Kishori Lal Jiwanu Ram and Dhan Sukh were residents of the Estate in terms of Rule 3 (d) of H. P. Nautor Rules, 1968. the then learned Financial Commissioner considered the case on 10th December, 1976. He then remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Simla to make specific inquiry whether all the four concerned parties namely, S/Shri Rama Nand, Kishori Lal Jiwanu Ram and Dhan Sukh were residents of the Estate in terms of Rule 3 (d) of H. P. Nautor Rules, 1968. He remanded the case on the ground that the H. P. Nautor Rules, 1968 had been promulgated by the Nautor was sanctioned in favour of the parties by the Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu on the 15th July, 1969. 9. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Simla sent his report to the learned Financial Commissioner on 6-8-1977. Where the case was under pro cess by him in enquiry, S/Shri Rama Nand and Kishori Lal had contended that the H. P. Nautor Rules, 1968 were not applicable in their cases. How ever, these objections were over-ruled by the Deputy Commissioner as his enquiry was restricted to the specific remand order of the learned Financial Commissioner. 10. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Simla in his report on 6-8-1977 observed that out of the four persons, only Shri Jiwanu Ram was the resident of the Estate Milion. Shri Dhan Sukh was resident of a neighbouring Dalan Estate. S/Shri Rama Nand and Kishori Lal did not also being to Milon but belonged to the neighbouring Kotgarh Revenue Estate prior to the greet of Nautor, Milon, Dalan and Kotgarh Estates were, however, three revenue estates framing part of the same Patwar Circle, Cotgarh. 11. My learned predecessor considered this report of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Simla and decided the case on 224-1982; He held that the H. P. Nautor Rules, 968 were applicable and since under the said Rules S/Shri Rama Nand, Kishori Lal and Dhan Sukh did not belong to the revenue estate of Milon in which the land had been granted, he cancelled all these claiments in their favour. The only grant in favour of Shri Jiwanu Ram was decided to stand. 12. The present Review petition is against this order of my learned preprocessor dated 22-1-1982. In the petition both the petitioners namely, Shri Kishori Lal and Rama Nand have made the following basic points :— 1. The only grant in favour of Shri Jiwanu Ram was decided to stand. 12. The present Review petition is against this order of my learned preprocessor dated 22-1-1982. In the petition both the petitioners namely, Shri Kishori Lal and Rama Nand have made the following basic points :— 1. Their cases should have been decided in terms of H. P. Nautor Rules, 1954 (hereinafter described as "1954 Rules) and not in terms of H. P. Nautor Rules, 1968 (hereinafter described as "1698 Rules). 2. Under the provisions of Rule 3 (a) of "1954 Rules" even a person belong to an adjoining revenue estate was to be treated as "Estate right holder"). 3. Further under rule 6 of the 1954 Rules, as amended by the H. P. Government through a notification dated the 13th May 1963, the Armed Forces Personnel were to be given preference in granting Nautor over other applicants. The contention of S/Shri Rama Nand and Kishori Lal is that both of them belonged to the armed forces and as such the original order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated the 25th May, 1964 was legal and valid. 4. My learned predecessor in his order dated 22.1.1982 had relied on the H. P. High Court Full Bench Ruling in the case Mangheru v. State, (ILR 1981, Himachal 283). But the said ruling pertains to amendment of the original allotment/Nautor where the allottee had concealed same material facts before the authorities and concerned allotment by fraud and mis-representation etc. In the instant case these were allegedly not so. 13. I have heard all the parties, their counsels and have carefully gone through, through the facts of the case. The main point at issue is which particular Nautor rules should apply in the instant case. Should it be the 1954 Rules, or the 1968 Rules ? My learned predecessors in their orders made from 10th December, 1976 onwards held that the 1968 Rules, would be applicable, since these were the rules in force in 15th July, 1969 which was the date of the subsisting grant. But how did this date of 15th July, 1969 (When the Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu passed his revised order of allotment is original) arise ? But how did this date of 15th July, 1969 (When the Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu passed his revised order of allotment is original) arise ? Apparently the Deputy Commissioner got the occasion to pass the order on that date because the Learned Divisional Commissioner had in his order dated the 23rd March, 1968 remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner for reconsideration. The remand order of the Divisional Commissioner was occasioned by the previous order Deputy Commissioner Mahasu dated the 29th November, 1967 under which he had reduced the allotments of S/Shri Rama Nand and Kishori Lal as already indicated. In facts the Deputy Com missioner had originally first sanctioned on 25-5-1954 lands in favour of S/Shri Rama Nand and Kishori Lal which were subsequently modified by his subsequent orders dated 29-11-1967. Proceedings, therefore, areose out of these original orders of the Deputy Commissioner, dated the 25th May, 1964. 14. So it will be obvious that it will be wrong to presume that the relevant date of subsisting grant is 15th July, 1969 by which time the H- P. Nautor Rules, 1968 had come into force. Clearly all the persons cases pre-date the Promulgation of H. P. Nautor Rules, 1968. In fact the order of the Deputy Commissioner on 15-7-1969 was to confirm his earlier order passed on 29-11-67 and the entire chain or seqence of proceedings originated form the first order dated 25-5-1964. Evidently, therefore, all the material dates are prior to the enforcement of the "1968 Rules" and H. P. Nautor Rules. 1954 would obviously be the relevant rules for determining the cases, so far as the substantive thoughts of the parties are concerned. 15. Now under these "1954 Rules," it is not necessary for a person to Belong to the same revenue estate in order to belong to a neighbouring revenue estate. Therefor, in the face of the Additional Deputy Commissioners subsequent enquiry report dated 6.8.1977 ail the four persons are established to be eligible for allotment. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioners have relied on 1963 amendment to the H. P. Nautor Rules 1954 under which a new para 4 was added to rule 6 ibid. Under this, amendment applications of the serving defence personnel were mandatorily to be given preference for grant of Nautors to other categories of applications. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioners have relied on 1963 amendment to the H. P. Nautor Rules 1954 under which a new para 4 was added to rule 6 ibid. Under this, amendment applications of the serving defence personnel were mandatorily to be given preference for grant of Nautors to other categories of applications. True, the intention of this amendment was that a serving defence personnels application must not be ignored if otherwise found eligible. But the said rules never prescribed that such defence personnel must be allotted land for whatever area had been applied for by them. The requirement of the Rules is that they must allotted land not necessarily for whatever area they have demanded. 17. Under the circumstances, I find nothing wrong with the decision of the learned Divional Commissioner dated the 15th May, 1970 which was subsequently upheld by the learned Financial Commissioner on 26th August, 1971. Under these orders ail the persons including the petitioners who claim preference as defences personnel had been allotted lauds of defence areas. His order was valid in terms "1954 Rules and the learned Divisional Com missioner and the Financial Commissioner gave elaborate justification for the orders. 18. I, therefore, consider it necessary to set aside the order of my learned predecessors dated 22.1.1982 and maintain that the order of my predecessor dated the 26th August, 1971 which confirmed the orders of the Divisional Commissioner be finally upheld and maintained. The Deputy Commissioner, Simla should now ensure that all the four persons are promptly given possession of the lands as decided by the learned Divisional Commissioner on 15.5.1970 and for the matter excess lands occupied by Shri Rama Nand and Kishori Lal if any, should be taken away, without delay and redistributed. The case had been lingering on in litigation since 1964 and the other persons, like Jiwanoo Ram (or his legal heirs) have been denied so far the fruits of allotment. 19. The said order of the learned Divisional Commissioner dated the 15th May, 1970 clearly held that S/Shri Rama Nand and Kishori Lal would not be allowed to cut 102 trees still standing according to the said order. It is not known whether these trees are still standing on these lands or not. 19. The said order of the learned Divisional Commissioner dated the 15th May, 1970 clearly held that S/Shri Rama Nand and Kishori Lal would not be allowed to cut 102 trees still standing according to the said order. It is not known whether these trees are still standing on these lands or not. From a report of the Deputy Commissioner, Simla No. 3-SML (PSH)-6-NC/76-Kumar- sain-122, dated 21st February, 1977) it appears that the number of trees were at that stage much less. The Deputy Commissioner while preparing revised Tatimas of the lands to be given to all the four persons including their legal heirs should ascertain with the aid of local Forest Authorities the actual num her of trees still standing on the plots of S/Shri Rama Nand and Kishori Lal in terms of the Divisional Commissioners order. In case the number is less then 102, both of them, namely, Shri Rama Nand and Kishori Lal shall pay to the Government the current market value of the trees since removed. 20. The amended Pattas be issued accordingly. Since it effectively reduces the allotments of S/Shri Rama Nand and Kishori Lal with reference to the original allotments in their favour on 25th May, 1964, the proportionate amount of Nazrana for the reduced area should be refunded to them and this refund should be adjusted against the payment to be collected from them for the trees removed, if any. Announced today the 18th of August, 1982.