JUDGMENT M.N. RAO, C.J.—The first respondent herein was allotted nautor land comprising Khasra No. 1211/1 measuring 5 bighas situated In village Sehal (Pairi), Tehsil Sadar on 15-5-1975 by an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (C): Sadar. As there were some objections with regard to that piece of land, the same extent of land was granted to the first respondent on 28-5-1986 in the land comprising Khasra Nos. 1250/468/1, 555/1, 555/2 and 555/3 in the same village. The petitioners herein raised objections in regard to the aforesaid grant before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi district. After hearing both sides the Deputy Commissioner sustained the objections and set aside the grant on the ground that the first respondent herein was not eligible for the grant of land since he was living with his father who was holding 37 bighas of land at the time of allotment. This finding was recorded by the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the report received from the Tehsildar Sadar. In the second appeal, the Commissioner, Mandi Division, held on 18-89-1989 that the first respondent was living separately from his father and, therefore, there was no embargo of his getting the allotment and that there was in prohibition for allotment of land in his favour. The Commissioner observed in his order that the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner on the aspect that the first respondent was living with his father was clearly unsustainable since the Tehsildar had not made any inquiry himself but only forwarded the report received by him from the field Kanungo. The Commissioner has elaborately adverted to various circumstances showing that the first respondent had been living separately from his father from 1973 onwards. As there was no ineligibility under Rule 8 for a person who was separated from his father for allotment, the Commissioner set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and allowed the second appeal preferred by the first respondent. 2. The petitioner were unsuccessful in the revision filed before the Financial Commissioner with the result that the order of the Commissioner, Mandi became final. 3. in this writ petition, the Commissioners order as affirmed by the Financial Commissioner is questioned on two grounds by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 1. The first respondent has a monthly income of more than Rs. 3. in this writ petition, the Commissioners order as affirmed by the Financial Commissioner is questioned on two grounds by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 1. The first respondent has a monthly income of more than Rs. 2,000/- per annum and as per the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, a person whose annual income is more than Rs. 2,000/- is not eligible for allotment. 2. If the father of an allottee is alive, he is not eligible under Rule 8. 4. In our view both the contentions do not merit acceptance. The objection that a person whose annual income is more than Rs. 2,000/- is not eligible for allotment of nautor land has not been raised before the Deputy Commissioner and for the first time it has been raised in this writ petition. We are not inclined to go into this question which is raised for the first time in the writ petition, and which the statutory authorities had no occasion to consider. 5. The argument that if the allottees father is alive, he is not eligible under Rule 8 is totally misconceived, The rule is in the following terms : "8. Where the father is alive, his son or daughter, and where the husband is alive, his wife, shall not be eligible to apply for nautor land except as follows : Exceptions : - (a) If a son or a daughter of a wife proved that the father or the husband, as the case may be, has disinherited or separated him or her, or has renounced the world, such a son or daughter or wife as the case may be, will be eligible for nautor land, and 6. From a reading of the aforesaid rule, it is dear that if the son has separated from his father, he is eligible for allotment of nautor land. As the finding in the present case, as recorded by the Commissioner, is that since 1973 the first respondent has been living separately from his father, in our view, he does not suffer from any disqualification for the purpose of allotment. The writ petition, for these reasons, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.