JUDGMENT M. S. Mukherjee, F. C—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25-10-1986 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, in nautor appeal No- 108/86 titled as Sh. Sant Ram v. Smt, Rattani Devi. The petitioner has challenged the propriety and legality of the impugned order ©n the ground that he, being a poor harijan, was identified as landless/eligible person under the H. P. Grant of Land to Landless/otrjer Eligible Persons Schemes, 1975 (hereinafter described as Nautor Scheme) and that the Tehsildar Sadar, Bilaspur, vide his order dated 22-6-1979 had sanctioned in his favour an area measuring 3-10 bighas, comprised in Khasra No. 141/1 situated in Revenue Estate Bhadiat, Tehsil Bilaspur under the Scheme ibid. Besides, his brother Sh. Nikka Ram too, was granted land comprised in Khasra No. 141/2 measuring 3-10 bighas in the same revenue estate under the above scheme. The Pattas were given to the grantee, and mutations were attested. Further, possession of the lands was also delivered to the petitioner and since 1979, the grantee has been allegedly cultivating the land. But, this grant, it is alleged, was wrongly later on rejected by the Tehsildar by a fresh order dated 5-12-1980 on the ground that the land in question already stood sanctioned in favour of Smt. Rattani Devi (present respondent) under the Re-settlement and Re-habilitation of Bhakra-Dam Oustees (Grant of Land) Scheme, 1971 (hereinafter described as Oustees Scheme) by a previous order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, dated 23-1M972. 2. It has also been contended by the petitioner in his petition that when the grant of the land in dispute had been made in his favour, the same was Banjar at site and that the same was not possessed by anybody. Therefore, he has already spent huge amounts on the land and has brought the same under cultivation. He has also challenged the validity of the allotment of the land in favour of Smt. Rattani Devi, an oustee of the Bhakra Dam (present respondent), alleging that the mother of Smt. Rattani Devi was in fact the oustee and not Smt. Rattani Devi, the respondent. Moreover, Rattani Devis mother had already been granted 10-0 bighas of land under the Oustees Scheme. So, the respondent, Smt. Rattani Devi, the petitioner has contended, could only get the share out of her mothers grant. The petitioner has further alleged that Smt. Rattani Devi was not a needy person. Moreover, Rattani Devis mother had already been granted 10-0 bighas of land under the Oustees Scheme. So, the respondent, Smt. Rattani Devi, the petitioner has contended, could only get the share out of her mothers grant. The petitioner has further alleged that Smt. Rattani Devi was not a needy person. Had she readliy been in need of the land, the petitioner has argued, she would have cultivated the land soon after receipt of original allotment order in her favour. 3. From the records, however, it appears that the land comprised in Khasra No. 141/1 (measuring 3-10 bighas) situated in village Bhadiat, Tehsil Bilaspur, was sanctioned in nautor by Tehsildar on 20-6-1979 in favour of Shri Sant Ram, the petitioner, under the provisions of the Nautor Scheme. In another case, the petitioners brother, Shri Nika Ram, was granted nautor under the same scheme for the land comprised in Khasra No. 141/2 (3-10 bighas) situated in the same Village, again vide Tehsildars order dated 25-6-1979. So, two plots bearing Khasra No. 141/1 (3-10 bighas) and Khasra No. 141/2 (3-10 bighas) were granted to the petitioner and his brother by the Tehsildar in June, 1979. But the possession on record eventually turned out to be otherwise. This is because these two plots had already been allotted by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur by his previous order dated 31-3-1977 in favour of Smt. Rattani Devi, the respondent and that this allotment had been made under the Oustees Scheme. Further, under the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, according to record Smt. Rattani Devi, respondent, had already bean given possession of these lands and the requisite patta has also been issued. This had been done much prior to the subsequent allotment of the same lands in favour of the petitioner Shri Sant Ram under the Nautor Scheme. 4. The orders regarding grant of land to Shri Sant Ram and his brother and also the allotment in favour of Smt. Rattani Devi, respondent, were challenged by the parties in appeal, counter appeal and revisions at various levels. The Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, accepted the appeal of Smt. Rattani Devi (present respondent) against the order of Tehsildar dated 20-6-1979 and remanded the case to the Tehsildar Bilaspur to freshly examine the case of the present petitioner. This order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 10-6-1980. The Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, accepted the appeal of Smt. Rattani Devi (present respondent) against the order of Tehsildar dated 20-6-1979 and remanded the case to the Tehsildar Bilaspur to freshly examine the case of the present petitioner. This order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 10-6-1980. In pursuance of this, the Tehsildar, vide his order dated 5-12-1980 cancelled the grants made in favour of the present petitioner. This order of the Tehsildar dated 5-12-1980 was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner by the present petitioner in revision under Nautor Scheme. The Deputy Commissioner rejected this petition by his order dated 24-8-19^1 mainly on the ground that since the land, in question, stood already granted in favour of Smt Rattani Devi, petitioner under a separate scheme namely Oustees Scheme, no revision of the order lies under the different Nautor Scheme. 5. On the other hand, the Deputy Commissioners original order dated 31-3-1977 sanctioning these lands in favour of Smt. Rattani Devi (the present respondent), had been assailed in an appeal by the present petitioner and his brother before the learned Divisional Commissioner. The learned Divisional Commissioner remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur for a fresh decision on merits after ascertaining the facts, whether or not, other share-holders of Smt. Rattani Devi were sanctioned nautor lands in lieu of Gharat, which had been acquired for the construction of Bhakra Dam. The Deputy Commissioner thereafter, ascertained that other share-holders of Smt. Rattani Devi had also been given land upto 10 bighas under the Oustees Scheme. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur held that Smt. Rattani Devi, the respondent, should not be deprived of the benefits already taken by her other co-share-holders. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, by his fresh order dated 31-12-1985 maintained the order of his predecessor dated 31-3-1977, with the direction that Tehsildar should allot alternative lands to Shri Sant Ram (Petitioner) and Shri Nika Ram under the Nautor Scheme. This order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 31-12-1985 was again challenged by the petitioner before the learned Divisional Commissioner, but the latter, vide his order dated 25-10-1986, upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner. 6. The present revision petition by the petitioner is against the said impugned order of the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 25-10-1*86. 7. 6. The present revision petition by the petitioner is against the said impugned order of the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 25-10-1*86. 7. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have perused the records. Briefly speaking, there is no dispute about the need of granting lands to the petitioner and his brother under the Nautor Scheme on the ground that they are landless or other eligible people. In fact, the Deputy Commissioner through the order dated 31-12-1985 has remanded the case to the Tehsildar, requiring the latter to sanction alternative lands to the petitioner and his brother under the Nautor Scheme. 8. The basic issue, however, is whether the petitioner should continue to enjoy the existing land in dispute as a nautor grantee, in which case the allotment of the same land previously made to the respondent by the Deputy Commissioner on 31-3-1977 has to be revoked. On this point the main legal problem prevails as to the maintainability of any appeal/review/revision against the aforesaid grant of land under the Oustees Scheme. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had agitated this legal point before my learned predecessor also in detail and it was then rightly held by my learned predecessor on 4-2-1987 that under the Oustees Scheme, there is no provision for any appeal, review or revision of any allotment once an allotment had been made. My learned predecessor, in his observations dated 4-2-1987 further observed that this might have been a lacuna in the Oustees Scheme, which would need to be rectified. However, as it is the Oustees Scheme has not yet been amended and under the existing provisions of the Oustees Scheme, no appeal, review or revision can be considered by the higher authorities, even if certain patent errors have subsequently been detected. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has none the less contended that since on merits, the lands have allegedly been wrongly allotted in favour of the respondent under the Oustees Scheme, this should be cancelled forthwith in the present revision petition and that the petitioners rights in the same lands should be upheld. 10. I am unable to accept this contention. The rights and responsibilities of the parties follow the provisions of the scheme/law as they are. If the scheme or the law is defective, pealing suitable prior amendment of the law/Oustees Scheme, no relief accrues to the petitioner. 10. I am unable to accept this contention. The rights and responsibilities of the parties follow the provisions of the scheme/law as they are. If the scheme or the law is defective, pealing suitable prior amendment of the law/Oustees Scheme, no relief accrues to the petitioner. Since under the Oustees Scheme, no such appeal/review/revision lies against the original allotment order of the learned Deputy Commissioner, the case of the petitioner must fail. The petitioner will, however, have some consolation inasmuch as that the Tehsildar had already been directed to allot alternative lands to him under the Nautor Scheme. 11. The petitioner had also made certain other observations regarding the eligibility of the respondent on merits under the Oustees Scheme. I need not go into these, as any way th? revision petition under the Oustees Scheme does not lie. 12. Under the circumstances explained above, the impugned order of learned Divisional Commissioner is upheld and the revision petition is dismissed. However, this raises also the issue of making requisite amendment in the Oustees Scheme in order to provide for appeal/review/revision in deserving cases. A copy of this order should, therefore, be sent to Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh in order to examine the need of an amendment to the scheme early, so that in appropriate cases, the competent authority is not deprived of the jurisdiction to amend an allotment under the Oustees Scheme, if such amendment is otherwise called for. Revision petition dismissed. -