Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 19 (HP)

SARSWATI DEVI v. STATE OF H. P.

2003-01-30

S.S.NEGI

body2003
ORDER S.S. Negi, IAS, FC. - The present revision petition has come up for hearing on the recommendations of the Commissioner Mandi Divison Mandi dated 19.4.2000 made in case file No. 244/98 stating that though there was no provision under the Scheme Grant of Nautor Land to Landless and Other Eligible Persons Scheme, 1973 to entertain any revision or appeal against the order of Deputy Commissioner but in special and peculiar circumstance and to award justice to the present petitioner, he has recommended that the grant of nautor land to the present petitioner be restored. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that Shri Ronki Ram the late husband of the present petitioner was sanctioned the nautor land comprising Khasra Nos. 487/1, 626/1 and 777/1 measuring 0-11-69 Hects, situated in Muhal Dharampur by the Tehsildar Sarkaghat vide order dated 25.4.1978 under the H.P. Govt. Grant of Nautor Land to Eligible Persons Scheme, 1975 against the payment of Rs.90-90 as nazrana. 3. Subsequently on the objections of Gram Panchayat, Dharampur, the Sub Divisional Officer, Sarkaghat reviewed the order of Tehsildar Sarkaghat dated 25.4.1978 granting nautor land to Shri Ronki Ram as on re-investigation with regard in this sanction of nautor land, the Sub Divisional Officer (C) Sarkaghat found that Sh. Ronki Ram was already having 0-30-54 Hects. Of land in his possession and his annual eligible person for grant of this land. The grant was accordingly cancelled vide order dated 21.2.1980. 4. Feeling aggrieved of this order of the Sub Divisional Officer (C) Sarkaghat dated 21.2.1980. Shri Ronki Ram the husband before the Additional Deputy Commissioner Mandi who after thorough perusal of the entire record and going through the order of the Sub Divisional Officer (C) as well, rejected the revision petition vide order dated 27.1.1981. 5. Dis-satisfied with this order, Smt. Sarswati Devi wd/o Shri Ronki Ram the present petitioner filed revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi on the grounds that learned Sub Divisional Officer (C) below had wrongly concluded that the income of her husband was over 3000/- per annum but the fact was that her husband was having no income and that the land measuring 0-30-44 Hects. which was possessed by the husband of petitioner was in fact acquired by the PWD Deptt. which was possessed by the husband of petitioner was in fact acquired by the PWD Deptt. for the construction of Dharampur Rest House inspite of the protest of the petitioner and her husband and thus the present petitioner had become totally landless and are on the verge of starvation. 6. The learned Commissioner after hearing the special power of attorney of the petitioner and having gone through the entire record has recommend the present case to this court vide his recommendations dated 19.4.2000 for passing an appropriate order in the matter. 7. The matter has been heard and the relevant records have been gone through. 8. The record reveals that the Additional Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of revision under Section 9-A of the aforesaid scheme vide order dated 27.1.1981 cancelled the grant on the ground that said Ronki owned 0-30-54 Hects. of land, which was not cultivated by him and that land under grant was not put to cultivation by him. He" was also reported to have an income of more than Rs.3000/- and his daughter and her husband, who are both School teachers having sufficient income lived with him. 9. In view of these grounds, he was not held to be eligible to the grant Nautor under the scheme. Order passed by Deputy Commissioner or Additional Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be under Section 9-A of the scheme in exercise of the revisional powers are final and are not open to further appeal or revision before any authority including this court. Consequently the recommendations are not maintainable and are hereby turned down. 10. Orders be communicated to the parties and the case file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion.