ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 114 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act against an order dated 4-10-2002 passed by the Commissioner (Revenue), Himachal Pradesh in appeal No. 122/2001. 2.Brief facts of the case are that the predecessor in interest of the respondents were recorded as occupancy tenants under the State of H.P. in respect of 61-2 bighas of land situated in village Bhaghi, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, and were conferred proprietary rights vide mutation No. 149 dated 30-7-1975. The predecessor in interest of the petitioners were recorded as non-occupancy tenants over this land under the predecessor in interest of the respondents. On 1-12-1975, the predecessor in interest of the respondents applied for resumption of land and the Land Reforms Officer ordered resumption on 7-4-1976 accordingly. This order was later remanded by the Distt. Collector, Bilaspur vide order dated 30.11.1988 on appeal and the Land Reforms. Officer, Sadar rejected the application for resumption on 22-8-2000. This order dated 22-8-2000 was challenged in appeal before the District Collector, Bilaspur who rejected the appeal on 21-4-2001 holding that the application for resumption had to be filed within one month from the date of commencement of the rules. The rules came into force on 4-10-1975 and the application for resumption has been made 2-12-1975 which was barred by limitation. The respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Revenue), Himachal Pradesh who held that the rules came into force on 4-10-1975 although these were published in the Rajpatra on 10-11-1975. The permissible period as per notification dated 1-11-1975 published on 10-11-975 provides for a period of two months instead of one months from the date of coming into force of the rules for filing the application for resumption of land through LR-V. The learned Commissioner also observed that the Land Reforms Officer has not given any findings whether the order dated 7-4-1976 passed by the Land Reforms Officer is final and binding or not. He remanded the case to the District Collector for deciding it afresh vide order dated 4-10-2002. 3. The present revision petition has been filed on the grounds that while remanding the case, the learned Commissioner has not decided the point of limitation. It has been averred that the legal question involved in this case is the period of limitation for filing the application for resumption. 3. The present revision petition has been filed on the grounds that while remanding the case, the learned Commissioner has not decided the point of limitation. It has been averred that the legal question involved in this case is the period of limitation for filing the application for resumption. The conferment of proprietary rights are automatic and therefore, the concessions given to the land owners came to an end on 3-11-1975 and further extension of time would not defeat the rights of the tenants. 4. The record of the case has been seen and counsel for the parties heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the application for resumption was time barred. It was filed on 1.12.1975 but the tenants had acquired proprietary rights of the land under tenancy automatically on the coming into operation of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The proprietary rights could not be relegated again on account of application for resumption filed by Shri Ramesh Chand and others as this was beyond the period of one month prescribed for filing such applications. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Land Reforms Officers decided the application for resumption of the land as per the entitlement of the owners through his order dated 7.4.1976. This order was never challenged and had therefore attained finality. There was no clarity in the order passed by the District Collector as he could not reopen an issue settled several years ago with another order being passed by the Land Reforms Officer setting aside the claim for resumption of the land under tenancy. In fact, the order of the Land Reforms Officer of 7.4.1976 had not been implemented till date and the owners were suffering greatly on this account. The execution petitions to which reference has been made in the order of the District Collector related to a period prior to 1976 and these were in respect of payment of rent by the tenants to the landlords. The learned Divisional Commissioner had reached the conclusion while adjudicating on the issue of limitation regarding the application filed in 1975 for resumption of the suit land. While the Act ibid came into effect w.e.f. 3.10.1975, the HP. The learned Divisional Commissioner had reached the conclusion while adjudicating on the issue of limitation regarding the application filed in 1975 for resumption of the suit land. While the Act ibid came into effect w.e.f. 3.10.1975, the HP. Tenancy Land Reforms Rules, 1975 were published in the Rajpatra on 10.11.1975 and a period of 2 months was provided therein for, filing of applications under various provisions of the Rules. Thus, the application filed in Form LR-VonJ.12.1975 was very much within time and the Land Reforms Officer had rightly allowed the resumption of the suit land as per the eligibility in favour of the land owners. The learned Commissioner has also mentioned in his order that the Land Reforms Officer without adverting to the earlier order dated 7.4.1976 passed by his predecessor treated the matter as a fresh case and dismissed the application for resumption on 22.8.2000. 6.Having perused the record the weighed the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the application for resumption filed by Shri Ramesh Chand and others was within time and was rightly decided by the Land Reforms Officer on 7.4.1976. This order was never challenged and therefore attained finality. The District Collector could not decide this issue through his order of 21.4.2001 for the simple reason that the order of 7.4.1976 was never challenged before him. The learned Commissioner (Revenue) had already accepted the appeal to the extent of setting aside the order of the Collector dated 24.1.2001. He remanded the case to the Collector for deciding the same afresh after giving due opportunity to the parties according to the law. It appears to me, however, that the matter is clear enough. The application for resumption was filed by Shri Ramesh Chand and others within time and the Land Reforms Officer passed the order allowing resumption on 7.4.1976. This order never having been challenged has attained finality and has to be implemented. There is nothing more that is to be considered for decision in this case and further enquiry will not serve any useful purpose. In view of the above, this revision petition is partly accepted to the extent that the quashing of the order of the District Collector dated 21.4.2001 is upheld. Now directions are given to the Land Reforms Officer to implement the order 7.4.1976 without further delay. 7. Order be communicated to the parties. In view of the above, this revision petition is partly accepted to the extent that the quashing of the order of the District Collector dated 21.4.2001 is upheld. Now directions are given to the Land Reforms Officer to implement the order 7.4.1976 without further delay. 7. Order be communicated to the parties. The record of the courts below be returned and the case file of this court be consigned to the re cord room after due completion.