JUDGMENT V. P. Gupta, J.— In this Letters Patent Appeal the appellants are the plaintiffs while the respondents are the defendants in the main suit. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit on 23/7.1964 in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Mandi for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction to the effect that the land of khasra Nos. 2649/314 and 2651/1618 (2 plots) measuring 3 bighas and 14 biswas of Jamabandi 1959-60 in village Mahadev, Tehsil Sunder Nagar is in possession of the parties in equal shares and defendant No. 1 (Chamaru) be directed to refrain from causing interference in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs in any manner. 3. The plaintiffs alleged that the disputed land was government land which was granted to defendant No. 1 as nautor. The plaintiffs objected to this grant of nautor. A compromise in writting was effected between the parties on 15.12.1954. According to the compromise/agreement, the parties came in possession of the disputed land in equal shares, each party having l/9th share. Defendant No. 1 also agreed to get a mutation sanctioned in , plaintiffs favour. The plaintiffs were also put in possession of the land and they did not doubt the bona fide of defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs alleged that after 12,7.1964 the defendant No. 1 started interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the suit land and as such they were compelled to file the suit. 4. The defendants did not admit the plaintiffs claim and contested the suit. The alleged agreement/compromise was denied and it was further alleged that the same was void and unenforceable. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 5.1,1965 :— 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners and in possession of the land in suit ? OPP 2. Whether the defendant No. 1 is causing interference in the posses sion of the plaintiffs over the land in suit ? OPP 3. Whether the suit is within time? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPP 5. Whether the defendant No- 1 is estopped from denying the execution of the suit agreement? OPP 6. Whether the defendant No. 1 had executed the agreement dated 15.12.1964? OPP 7. If Issue No. 6 is found in affirmative, whether said agreement is void for the reason set out in the written statement? 6. OPP 5. Whether the defendant No- 1 is estopped from denying the execution of the suit agreement? OPP 6. Whether the defendant No. 1 had executed the agreement dated 15.12.1964? OPP 7. If Issue No. 6 is found in affirmative, whether said agreement is void for the reason set out in the written statement? 6. The Senior Sub Judge gave findings on issues Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 in favour of the plaintiffs and decided issues Nos. 4, 5 and 7 against the defendants. As a result of these findings the plaintiffs suit for declaration and injunction was decreed on 30.11,1966. 7. The defendants preferred an appeal in the court of District Judge Mandi who accepted the appeal on 17.10.1967 and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. He held that the agreement dated 15-12-1954 (Ex. P W 4/A) was simply a paper transaction and was never acted upon and the suit was barred by limitation. The agreement Ex. P W 4/A was held to be against the spirit of the nautor patta (Ex. D-l). 8. Dissatisfied with this judgment and decree of the District Judge, he plaintiffs filed an appeal in this court (R. S. A. No. 24 of 1968), A learned Single Judge of this court vide his judgment and decree dated 16-4-1971 dismissed the appeal with costs. He held that the disputed land was leased out to defendant No. 1 by the government and defendant No. 1 could not confer any rights upon the plaintiffs by any compromise (Ex. P W 4/A). He further held that the suit was time barred and the agreement dated 15 12-1954 (Ex. P W 4/A) was never acted upon. 9. Now before us the learned counsel for the appellants (plaintiffs) con tended that the agreement dated 15-12-19M (Ex. P W 4/A) was valid and binding and defendant No. 1 had handed over the possession of the land to the plaintiffs. He contended that defendant No. 1 was competent to do so and the findings of the learned District Judge and the Single Judge of this Court were not based upon proper appreciation of law and facts. He frankly conceded that the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Rules, 1954 (hereinafter the nautor rules) have the force of law in view of the decision in Som Krishan v. State (AIR 1979 H. P. 35) and in fact these rules arc to be considered law for all purposes. He frankly conceded that the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Rules, 1954 (hereinafter the nautor rules) have the force of law in view of the decision in Som Krishan v. State (AIR 1979 H. P. 35) and in fact these rules arc to be considered law for all purposes. 10. We have considered the contentions and have gone through the records. 11. The disputed land was a government land and it was granted to defendant No 1 (Chamaru) under the nautor rules vide a patta dated 3-12-1955 (Ex. D-l). It was granted to defendant No. 1 for Kasht mazrua’ purposes only, that is, cultivation. It was admitted by the plain tiffs counsel that the land was granted to defendant No 1 for subsistence purposes asis mentioned in Rule 4 (a) of the Nautor rules. According to Rule 5 of the nautor rules, land could be granted to landless persons or if no landless person comes forward for a particular piece of land to such persons as hold land less than 10 bighas per holding. Under Rule 9 (a) of the nautor rules the grant of nautor was subject to the following conditions — "(a) that in the case of nautor granted for subsistence no land revenue shall be charged for the first 4 harvests. If the grantee fails to break up and terrace the land within two years from the date of grant the grant shall be liable to resumption and no compensation shall be due to the grantee even if certain improvements have been effected ; (b) (c) (d) In the patta (Ex. D-l) condition No, 6 (c) reads as follows :— "OBLIGATIONS OF THE GRANTEE The grantee hereby covenants with Government as follows ;— (a) (b) (c) Within two years of the date of this grant to cause it to be fit for cultivation or within four years in the case of grant for orcharding, to plant up land with fruit trees, and to protect the land against erosion in such manner as may be considered adequate by the Deputy Commissioner, If the slop is excessive to provide suitable terracing. (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) 12. Thus according to the nautor rules and the conditions of the patta (Ex. D-l) the disputed land was granted to defendant No. 1 for subsistence and be was to make it fit for cultivation within two years. (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) 12. Thus according to the nautor rules and the conditions of the patta (Ex. D-l) the disputed land was granted to defendant No. 1 for subsistence and be was to make it fit for cultivation within two years. In case defendant No 1 failed to. break up and terrace the land within two years, the grant was liable to resumption and the defendant No. 1 could not claim compensation even if certain improvements had been effected by him. A combined reading of the various nautor rules and the conditions of the patta (Ex.D-1) clearly indicate that the object of such grant is to implement a policy of the Government to help certain persons who are either landless or have very little holdings and who need land for cultivation for the purposes of their subsistence. 13. Defendant No. 1 got the land subject to the conditions incorporated in the patta (Ex. D-l) and under the nautor rules The government while granting the nautor to defendant No. 1 must have kept in view the fact that defendant No 1 required the land for his subsistence and it could be granted in his favour under the nautor rules. Now, even if the agreement dated 15-12-1954 (Ex. P W 4/A) is admitted to be proved, still such an agreement is forbidden by law and is not enforceable under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. By this agreement defendant No. 1 had agreed to divide the disputed land in 9 equal shares thus keeping only one share for himself. For the remaining 8/9th share he agreed to relinquish his rights and accept the other 8 persons as owners. Defendant No. 1 after having got the land as nautor for himself for subsistence purposes was bound by the conditions of the patta (Ex D-l) as well as the nautor rules. He had no authority or right to transfer his ownership rights to third person on payment of any amount. Further, the land was given to defendant no. 1 for cultivation purposes only. By the agreement (Ex. P W 4/A) defendant No 1 agreed that the 8/9th portion of the land ,would remain the ownership of the other persons as it was their grazing ground. In other words, this land could not be utilised for cultivation purposes and was to remain a grazing ground, that is, cultivated land. 1 for cultivation purposes only. By the agreement (Ex. P W 4/A) defendant No 1 agreed that the 8/9th portion of the land ,would remain the ownership of the other persons as it was their grazing ground. In other words, this land could not be utilised for cultivation purposes and was to remain a grazing ground, that is, cultivated land. Such an agreement is clearly forbidden by law and will defeat the very object of the grant of land in favour of defendant No. 1. Hence the plaintiffs cannot seek the enforcement of this agreement (Ex. P W 4/A) The purpose of granting nautor to various persons under the nautor rules is a matter of policy of the government. The government wanted to help certain poor and landless persons by giving them land for their subsistence. 14. In Ganesa Naickenv. Arumugha^ Naicken—AIR 1954 Mad. 811, it was held that where a grant was in the nautor of a gift by the Government with a specific provision that the properly shall not be alienated without the consent of the tehsildar, it was intended to be personal to the grantee. Any contract which has the effect of circumventing this policy of the Government would be opposed to public policy. 15. In the present case too, the government granted nautor to defendant No. 1 with certain specific conditions. Under the conditions of the patta [Ex. D-l] and the nautor rules, the defendant No. 1 was supposed to break up the land and make it fit for cultivation so that he could utilise the same for his subsistence. Defendant No. 1 was under an obligation to allow the government to resume this grant without any compensation even if he had made certain improvements on the same, if he failed to break up and terrace this land within two years from the date of the grant. Thus, it was also a personal grant to defendant No. 1. By transferring his rights of grant in fav our of other 8 persons defendant No. 1 has in fact circumvented the policy of the government and this action of defendant No 1 is therefore, against the public policy. 16. In view of the above discussion, the agreement dated 15-1^-1954 (Ex. PW 8/A) is unenforceable and the plaintiffs cannot be granted any relief on the basis of this agreement. 16. In view of the above discussion, the agreement dated 15-1^-1954 (Ex. PW 8/A) is unenforceable and the plaintiffs cannot be granted any relief on the basis of this agreement. We also do not find any reasons to disagree with the various reasonings given by the learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 16-4-1971 17. As a result of the above discussion, the present appeal is dismissed. I agree Appeal dismissed , -