JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, J. - The present writ petition, which is in the nature of public interest litigation, has been filed seeking the issuance of the following directions/mandates to the respondents:— "(i) That this Honble Court may direct the respondents to produce the entire record of the present case for the perusal of this Honble Court. (ii) That issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ / order directing the respondent No. 2 to conduct further investigation/probe /enquiry in the light of fresh evidence coming to light vide enquiry reports dated 15.5.2002 and 18.12.2002 or in the alternate constitute a multi disciplinary Special Investigation Team consisting of officers of CBI, experts in Revenue Laws, officers of Union Home Ministry and trained prosecutors for proper investigation of the entire scam. (iii) That issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 and 3 to initiate appropriate civil remedies against respondent No. 5 for recovery of losses to State exchequer caused due to non implementation of agreement dated 15.3.1948 and provision of Section 27 (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates Act, 1953. (iv) That monitor the progress of actions taken by the respondents No. 1 to 3 on prayers (a) and (b) above through directions of timely submissions of action taken reports; and (v) Any other order which this Honble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the matter may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (vi) That the petition may kindly be allowed with costs." 2. The factual matrix, on which the aforesaid reliefs are claimed, may be summed up thus. After the country attained freedom from the British Rule in 1947, the process for merger of princely States started. There was one princely State known as "Rampur Bushehar". it appears that at the relevant time the ruler of the said State, namely respondent No. 5, was a minor and therefore, his mother, acting as his guardian, executed the covenant with the Central Government for the merger of the Rampur Bushehar State with Union of India. As per that covenant, the State was to merge with the Union of: India and in lieu thereof certain amount of money was to be paid annually by way of privy purse to the Ruler. As per that covenant, the State was to merge with the Union of: India and in lieu thereof certain amount of money was to be paid annually by way of privy purse to the Ruler. Besides that, some property, detail of which was to be furnished by the guardian of respondent No. 5, was to be left with respondent No. 5, as his absolute property. It is alleged that after the covenant was executed, respondent No. 5 did not surrender to the Government of India the property other than that was reserved by him as his private property, under the covenant and continued to enjoy its usufruct, thereby causing pecuniary loss to the State. Further it is alleged that in the year 1955 H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates & Land Reforms Act, 19.53 came into force and under the provisions of Section 27 (1) of the said Act, even the property reserved under the covenant as personal property of respondent No. 5, vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh, but respondent No. 5 continued to occupy the said property till the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 came into operation in July, 1973 and in this way he enjoyed the usufruct of that property also which was reserved under the covenant as his personal/private property, but vested in the State by virtue of the provisions of Section 27 (1) of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates & Land Reforms Act, 1953. It is alleged that respondent No. 5 exercised his political clout and authority to continue to hold the possession of the property, which was surrendered in 1948, being in excess of the property reserved by him, as also the property reserved by him as the personal property, after coming into force of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates & Land Reforms Act, 1953 and in this illegality the officials of the State Government assisted him, inasmuch as they did not carry out necessary corrections in the revenue papers and continued to record respondent No. 5 as the owner of the entire property and also did not take any steps to take the possession of the property from respondent No. 5. It is stated that though earlier the matter was referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigation by the State Government and the said agency suggested the closure of the matter with the observation that there was no material available to substantiate the allegations, later on an enquiry was got conducted by the State Government through an I.A.S. Officer and that Officer, vide report dated 15.5.2002 concluded as follows:— "From the above discussion it is apparent that the erstwhile Rulers of Bushahar State in connivance with the Government officials/ officers managed to retain lands which were to vest in the Government as per agreement signed between Rajmata Shanti Devi of Bushahar State on behalf of Raja Virbhadra Singh (being minor), his heirs and successors in March, 1948 with the Government of India. They in connivance with the Government officials/officers also managed to retain lands which were to vest in the Government w.e.f. 26.1.1955 under Section 27 (1) of the "H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estate Act, 1953. It is worth while to mention here that issue of non-implementation of 1948 agreement has never been raised in any Court and is not under dispute and as such, final. These lands were alienated by the members of the Ruling family through sale, gift, acquisition, sale of timber etc. and they obtained wrongful gain for themselves and consequent wrongful loss to the State exchequer." 3. Notice of the writ petition was issued to respondents No. 1 to 4 i.e. the Union of India, Central Bureau of Investigation, State of Himachal Pradesh and Secretary (Revenue). Respondents No. 3 and 4 have filed written reply. In their reply they have alleged that the matter is non-justifiable by the Courts in view of the bar contained in Article 363 of the Constitution of India. Respondents No. 3 and 4 have filed written reply. In their reply they have alleged that the matter is non-justifiable by the Courts in view of the bar contained in Article 363 of the Constitution of India. It is further alleged that some-time in the year 1987 an application, under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed by one Shri Kewal Ram Chauhan, Advocate in the Court of Special Judge, Shimla, seeking investigation of almost similar allegations, in which respondent No. 5 and some other persons were impleaded as respondents and that the Special Judge dismissed that application, holding that there was no substance in the allegations and the appeal, filed against the order of the Special Judge, was dismissed by the High Court and S.L.P. carried to the Honble Supreme Court was also dismissed. 4. On merits, it is alleged that respondent No. 5 had reserved 7805-10 Bighas of cultivable land and 1300 Bighas forest as his personal property, pursuant to the covenant executed between his mother, acting as his guardian, and the representative of the Central Government. It is alleged that out of 7805-10 Bighas land 2790-04 Bighas land stood vested in the State Government under Sections 27(1) and 11 of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates & Land Reforms Act, 1953, while the rest of the land, being under personal cultivation of respondent No. 5 and its revenue being less than Rs. 125/-, did not fall within the purview of Section 27(1) and so it remained with respondent No. 5. In a supplementary affidavit, filed by the Chief Secretary, on behalf of respondent No. 3, it is stated that the enquiry officer, who allegedly recorded the aforesaid conclusions, had a personal bias against respondent No. 5, because he had the feeling that certain adverse entries in his annual confidential report had been made by respondent No. 5 (when he was the Chief Minister) on account of some bias and he had in fact challenged those entries by filing an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, making respondent No. 5 as a party to the said application and alleging mala fides against him. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through, the record. 6. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through, the record. 6. It may be stated at the very outset that the allegations made in the present writ petition were sought to be got investigated from the Central Bureau of Investigation by the Government of India. A Deputy Inspector General of C.B.I., after looking into the allegations and carrying out some process of verification, returned the reference to the Government of India with the remarks that none of the allegations had been substantiated to be worth further probe by the C.B.I, and that, therefore, it had been decided to close the matter. 7. Even before the Government of India made a reference to the C.B.I., one Kewal Ram Chauhan, Advocate of Shimla had filed an application, under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Special Judge, Shimla, seeking a direction to the police to investigate the allegations against respondent No. 5 that he had, in connivance with the officials of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, felled trees from Government land and illegally transported the timber of those trees. It appears that the trees were alleged to have been felled from the land, which had allegedly vested in the Government by operation of various enactments. The Special Judge dismissed the application. An appeal filed in the High Court was also dismissed. The matter was taken by the applicant even to the Honble Supreme Court by filing an S.L.P., which too was dismissed. 8. It is in the aforesaid background that the matter needs to be looked into. The Special Judge dismissed the application. An appeal filed in the High Court was also dismissed. The matter was taken by the applicant even to the Honble Supreme Court by filing an S.L.P., which too was dismissed. 8. It is in the aforesaid background that the matter needs to be looked into. The writ petitioners have alleged that an enquiry was got conducted by the State Government through an I.A.S. Officer, impleaded as respondent No. 6 in this writ petition, and the said Officer, per his report annexure P-6, has given the finding that respondent No. 5 managed to retain the lands, which were to vest in the Government as per agreement signed at the time of the integration of the territory of erstwhile State of Rampur Bushahar with the territories of Union of India and that thereafter he also managed to retain the land, which had vested in the State, under Section 27 (1) of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates & Land Reforms Act, 1953 and a large part of the said land was illegally alienated to the members of the family of respondent No. 5 by means of gift deeds, sale deeds etc. 9. A careful reading of the report (Annexure P-6) shows that the enquiry officer did not have any material before him to come to the aforesaid conclusion. His report is like an essay, containing his personal views and opinion, based on the interpretation of the provisions of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates & Land Reforms Act, 1953 and the agreement that was executed between the guardian of respondent No. 5 and the representative of the Government of India, at the time of the merger of the erstwhile State of Rampur Bushahar. The only material, he has referred to in the report, is in the nature of two letters written by respondent No. 5 to his agent Shri Durga Singh. In one of the letters respondent No. 5 has rebuked his said agent for having been lethargic in the matter of getting mutated the lands, which belonged to him and that this was likely to jeopardize his interests when the law for laying upper ceiling, on the holdings, was enacted by the State Assembly. He directed the said agent to ensure that the attestation of mutation was expedited. He directed the said agent to ensure that the attestation of mutation was expedited. It is not understood how this communication substantiates the allegation that there was a conspiracy between respondent No. 5 and functionaries of the State Government to help the said respondent to retain land in excess of the land laws. 10. The other letter has no relevance to the allegations made in the petition. As per its contents, respondent No. 5 directed his agent to accompany Rajmata, when she went to Sarahan and to obey her instructions, because in the past he had caused annoyance to her by not arranging some Katha as per her desire. 11. No detail of the land and other properties of the erstwhile State of Rampur Bushahar, which had allegedly been retained by respondent No. 5 in addition to the properties, reserved for him under the agreement of merger, has been given. Similarly it has not been indicated which Officers or officials of the State Government, allegedly helped respondent No. 5 in supposedly retaining the land other than that reserved for respondent No. 5, under the aforesaid agreement. 12. Thus, the aforesaid inquiry in no way changes the situation, which existed when the Central Bureau of Investigation returned the reference to the Government of India for probing the allegations, in question, with categoric assertion that there was no material to substantiate the allegations and that, therefore, it had been decided to close the matter. , 13. Otherwise also a reading of the report of the enquiry officer and his subsequent letter, whereby he countered certain observations of the Enforcement Department, shows that the allegations mainly pertain to about 1300 Bighas land, which according to the report, was Banjar qudim and, therefore, it had vested under Section 27 of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates & Land Reforms Act, 1953 in the State. According to the respondents, this land was in the form of forest and had been shown as such even in the list of properties, supplied to the Government at the time of the execution of the agreement of merger. According to the respondents, this land was in the form of forest and had been shown as such even in the list of properties, supplied to the Government at the time of the execution of the agreement of merger. A reading of the report itself shows that though this land was initially recorded as "Banjar qudim" in the revenue papers, in actuality it was in the form of a forest, because the allegations are that respondent No. 5 had been cutting trees from this land and converting them into timber and transporting that timber, in connivance with the Forest officials. Now if the land was forest land, it did not come under the purview of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates Act, because as per definition of "land", given in Section 2 (5) of the said Act, forest land is not included in the definition. Private forests were included in the definition of "land" for the purposes of Ceiling on Holdings Act, per Section 3(f) of the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. This fact strengthens our view that forest land was not covered by the provisions of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates & Land Reforms Act. When the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 came into force, the forest land, in question, vested in the State, being in excess of the ceiling on holdings, prescribed under the Act. This is the admitted position. 14. As regards the rest of the land, which was covered by the definition of "land", given in the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates & Land Reforms Act, according to the reply filed by the Chief Secretary on behalf of respondent No. 3, duly supported by an affidavit, 2790 bighas of land, belonging to respondent No. 5, stands vested in the State, under the provisions of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates & Land Reforms Act and as regards the rest of the land, it is alleged that the same was under the self cultivation of respondent No. 5 and so it was saved from vestment under sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the said Act. Petitioners contention is that only 14 bighas 7 biswas land was under the personal cultivation of respondent No. 5 and that the remaining entire land was Gair Mumkin Banjar, Ghasni etc. Petitioners contention is that only 14 bighas 7 biswas land was under the personal cultivation of respondent No. 5 and that the remaining entire land was Gair Mumkin Banjar, Ghasni etc. and hence incapable of cultivation and so it had vested in the State, under Section 27 (1) of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates & Land Reforms Act, but it was allowed to remain with respondent No. 5. It is contended that there had been a judgment of the High Court in Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh v. The State of H.P. and others, (1973) SLJ H.P. 210) that Banjar qudim and Ghasni lands were incapable of personal cultivation and so they were not saved from vestment in the State, under sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the said Act and when that judgment was passed, the State functionaries ought to have dispossessed respondent No. 5 immediately. The judgment of the Single Bench was delivered some-time in the year 1973. Before that the H.P. Ceiling on Holdings Act, 1972 came into force and the property, in excess of the ceiling, prescribed under the said Act, vested in the State. 15. Also, we do not fine any material on record suggesting that respondent No. 5 exercised or had any occasion to exercise any influence over the State Government functionaries during the period he allegedly managed to keep with him possession of the land in spite of enactment of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates & Land Reforms Act. He was not in the State politics prior to 1983, though he was a Member of the Parliament at the relevant time. 16. The above stated position apart, the functionaries of the State Government, who allegedly favoured respondent No. 5 by not dispossessing him from the land and the forest that allegedly vested in the Government, are supposed to have by now retired and many of them may have even passed away. The alleged illegal acts were committed during the period more than thirty to fifty years back and by now no material evidence is supposed to be available to substantiate or negate the allegations and thus it will be an exercise in futility to order a probe into the allegations, as prayed for by the writ petitioners. The alleged illegal acts were committed during the period more than thirty to fifty years back and by now no material evidence is supposed to be available to substantiate or negate the allegations and thus it will be an exercise in futility to order a probe into the allegations, as prayed for by the writ petitioners. Even the claim for damages for the alleged illegal and unauthorised use of the land, belonging to the Government, has become barred by time. Thus, the prayer made by the writ petitioners, even if granted, will serve no useful purpose but result in wasteful expenditure. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.