JUDGMENT S S. Sidhu, I. A. S—This is a reference made by the Commissioner, Mandi Division vide his order dated 3-8-1992 in Nautor File No, 104/90, wherein he has recommended the cancellation of grant of Nautor land made in favour of Shri Hari Nand, respondent No. 1 by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi vide his order dated 21-12-1988 passed in Nautor File No. 7/88, granted nautor land comprised in Khasra No l418/908/2 measuring 0-02-00 hectares, situated in Muhal Lasrana, Sub-Tehsil Sandhol Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, for the construction of a house on payment of nazrana amounting to Rs. 12.50 and Rs 98.50 as value of forest produce in favour of Shri Hari Nand, respondent No. 1. He deposited the nazrana and Patta was also issued on 21-2-1989 and the same was received by the grantee on 1-7-1989. Shri Suresh Kumar, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Mandi Division, against the order dated 21-12-1988 of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi but that was dismissed being not maintainable for the reasons mentioned in the order dated 21-6-1989 of the Commissioner, Mandi Division. Feeling dissatisfied with the orders of the Revenue Officers below, Shri Suresh Kumar filed, Nautor Revision No. 84/89 before this Court on the ground that he had, purchased a piece of land comprised in Khasra No. 1418/808 in the same village and if nautor in favour of Shri Hari Nand is maintained, it would bar the petitioners access to the petitioners purchased land. This contention was held as not tenable and his revision petition was dismissed by our learned predecessor on 14-9-1989. 3. It was on 13-2-1990 that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Sarkaghat, reported to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi that Khasra No. 1418/908/2 mentioned in the order dated 21-12-1988 of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, had inadvertantly been shown wrong, He pointed out that as a matter of fact the correct Khasra No. is 1418/809/2 and requested the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, for further action The learned Deputy Commissioner, Mandi vide his endorsement dated 17-3-1990 ordered that Khasra number in the order dated 21-12-1988 be read as Khasra No. 1418/809/2. Accordingly, the Naib-Tehsildar, Sandhol, decided the mutation on 7-6-1990. The review order dated 17-3-1990 was challenged in an appeal No. 104/90 before the Commissioner, Mandi Division. Accordingly, the Naib-Tehsildar, Sandhol, decided the mutation on 7-6-1990. The review order dated 17-3-1990 was challenged in an appeal No. 104/90 before the Commissioner, Mandi Division. Since no appeal lies against the review order, the learned Commissioner, Mandi Division, treated the same as revision petition The appeal, which has been treated as revision, was filed before the Commissioner, Mandi Division, on 16-7-1990 and the record was requisitioned from the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi by the Commissioner, Mandi Division on 18-7-1990. The Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, while sending the Court file to the Commissioner, requested for permission to review his order dated 21-12-1988 on the ground mentioned therein. The review permission case was sent vide his endorsement No. NA/Peshi/91-263 dated 4-4-1991. However, the learned Commissioner did not take any action on the review permission case since appeal/ revision was already pending in his Court. After the perusal of the record, the learned Commissioner, Mandi Division, came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1, Shri Hari Nand had got the nautor land under dispute after concealing the facts and getting the resolution passed under his chairmanship from the Grain Panchayat. The learned Commissioner observed that Shri Hari Nand was having a house and was also installed a flour mill. He also observed that under Rule 83 of the Himachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat Rules, 1971, the grantee was not eligible to take part for considering his nautor application. Since Shri Hari Nand, respondent No 1 was found to have mis-used his position, the learned Commissioner has recommended to this Court vide his order dated 3-8-1992 that grant of nautor land made by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi vide his orders dated 21-11-1990 and 173-1990 be cancelled. 4. We heard the parties on 5-3-1993. Shri Hari Nand, respondent No. 1 also tendered written arguments, which are available on the file. 4. We heard the parties on 5-3-1993. Shri Hari Nand, respondent No. 1 also tendered written arguments, which are available on the file. Since th e recommendations given by the learned Commissioner, Mandi Division, in the order dated 3-8-1992 for cancellation of grant would lend to the review of order dated 14-9-1989 passed by this Court, we considered it proper to go through the record of the revision petition No. 8-t/89, in which the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, had been upheld We have very carefully gone through the record of the case and find that Shri Suresh Kumar, petitioner purchased a piece of land in village Lasraoa after Shri Hari Nand, respondent No. I had applied for the grant of nautor land for the construction of a house. Shri Hari Nand has attached a certificate dated 16-3-1993 from the Pardhan, Gram Panchayat, wherein it has been certified that Shri Hari Nand son of Late Shri Hem Singh belongs to Lonar caste (Harijan) and he does not have any house of his own and is also eligible under I.R.D.P. and his I RD. P. No. is 17/28 Shri Hari Nand has sltated in his written arguments that it was on account of his belonging to I.R.D.P. that subsidy was given to him for installation of a flour mill. A copy of resolution dated 20 -J-1988 of the Gram Panchayat, also support the contention of Shri Hari Nand. It has been stated that the land, which had been applied by Shri Hari Nand is adjacent to the Abadi of his fore-father and the land in question has been under his possession for the last 20 years. The Commissioner, Mandi Division has stated in his order dated 3-8 1992 that the proceedings under section 163 of the H 5. We have arrived at a conclusion that Shri Hari Nand, respondent No. 1 is a landless person having no source of income. No one from his family is employed in Government service. The land, on which Shri Suresh Kumar, petitioner, has constructed a house, is a private property. Before the purchase he should have verified about the availability of access to that land. He has no inherent right to claim access to his newly acquired plot through any adjoining Government land unless the said Government land had previously been shown in record as a public path. 6. Before the purchase he should have verified about the availability of access to that land. He has no inherent right to claim access to his newly acquired plot through any adjoining Government land unless the said Government land had previously been shown in record as a public path. 6. In view of the position stated above, we find ourselves unable to accept the recommendations made by the learned Commissioner, Mandi Division, in his order dated 3-8-1992. Accordingly, the orders dated 21-12-1988 and 17-3-1990 of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, do not call for any interference from this Court. As a result, the revision petition filed by Shri Suresh Kumar, petitioner, is dismissed. To be communicated. Petition dismissed.