Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 786 (HP)

Pankaj Kumar, s/o Jawahar Lal v. Jitender Kumar

2010-05-04

P.MITRA

body2010
ORDER (Sh. P. Mitra., IAS) - This revision petition under Rule 30 of the H .P. Nautor Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred as 'Nautor Rules') has been arisen on the recommendation made by the Commissioner, Mandi division in case No. 95/2007 dated 23.7.2009. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the land comprised in khasra No. 1467/1, measuring 5-0-7 bighas, in village Kandhol, Mohal Gohar, Tehsil Chachiyot was sanctioned as nautor to the predecessorin-interest of the present respondents (Sh. Gosain son of Sh. Saran Das) by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Manid Sadar in the year 1975. On the objections of one Sh. Tawaria, the matter was agitated in appeals before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi and later on before the Commissioner, Kangra division and ultimately before this court which were all dismissed. Later on, the success on in-interest of Sh. Tawaria filed a review petition before this court and the then predecessor of mine vide his order dated 7.8.1992 set-aside the grant of nautor as it contained thick forests growth and also ordered the Deputy Commissioner Mandi/Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Chachiot to give alternative land which should' be free from forests growth either in the vicinity or else where in the estate. In Compliance to the above directions, the land comprised khasra nos. 620, 1682/633/2, 1682/633/3, 1684/1,1171/1,296/1,1724/588/1,1703/1316/1, kita 8 total area measuring 4-3-10 bighas situated in mohal gohar was granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Chachiot in favour of the present respondents no. 1 and 2 being legal heirs of late Sh. Gausain Ram. This order was also challenged by the present petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi in appeal who dismissed the same vide order dated 27.11.2006. This order of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi was challenged in appeal before the Commissioner, Mandi Division, who has treated the appeal filed before him as a revision petition and has forwarded the same with his recommendations that the orders passed by both the courts below (i.e. below the Commissioner) are required to be set aside and the case is required to be remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) to decide it afresh after affording the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. The record of the lower courts below had been requisitioned and both the parties summoned before this court. Both the parties have submitted their written arguments which are placed on record. 3. The record of the lower courts below had been requisitioned and both the parties summoned before this court. Both the parties have submitted their written arguments which are placed on record. The petitioner has challenged the grant primarily on the grounds that the respondents have not done any horticultural work in the land in question so much so that no patta has been granted in their favour and even then the court below upheld the grant in favour of the respondents which is totally against the provisions of Rule 18(2) of the Nautor Rules; it has further been stated that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Gohar has not complied with the provision of Rule 21 ibid by seeking objections of the Panchayat and the Public Works and the Forests Departments. Further the respondent have started fencing etc. of the land in question abutting the P.W.D. road and also damaging the old public path over this land. 4. Per contra, the respondents have submitted that the grant made in favour of the predecessor-in-interests has been upheld by this court vide order dated 7.8.1992 but it has been modified to the extent that alternative land in lieu of the land already granted, other than forest land, be given and this order has become final. It is further averred that because of enmity and personal grouse against the respondent, the petitioner has involved them in unnecessary litigation and the petitioner has a vested interest on the land as he is digging the said land in order to construct a garage for parking purpose and he has no legal right and locus standi to question the legality of grant of nautor land. 5. On behalf of the State, the learned D.A. Mandi appeared and stated the sanction has been challenged after 17 years the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the nautor allotments. He stated that the nautor .was confirmed by the then Financial Commissioner. He further contended that the petitioner was having knowledge of allotment and challenged if after a long spell which is barred by limitation. He stated that the petition may be rejected. 6. I have perused the written arguments submitted by both the parties and considered the arguments advanced by the learned District Attorney, Mandi for the State of the H.P. The record of the lower courts have also been perused. He stated that the petition may be rejected. 6. I have perused the written arguments submitted by both the parties and considered the arguments advanced by the learned District Attorney, Mandi for the State of the H.P. The record of the lower courts have also been perused. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Chachiyot at Gohar sanctioning alternate nautor land to the legal heir of Shri Gausain, the original applicant, in compliance of the orders of this court, have also been perused from which it is revealed that before sanctioning the aforesaid land, the required no objection certificate' from the Forest and Public Works Departments have not been obtained as envisaged under Rules 14 and 15 of the Nautor Rules. The record also shows that the mutation no. 589 for the aforesaid land has also been sanctioned on 5.8.2000 without sanctioning the 'patta' for the above nautor land and also without issuing mutation memorandum in form-B as envisaged under the aforesaid Rules. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) also bears cuttings and connection using fluid which also cause suspicion. Besides, this order also does not show the date on which it has been passed. It appears that this sanction order has been passed in a hasty manner without adopting the prescribed procedure as laid down in the Nautor Rules. It has been sanctioned merely on the reports of the Revenue field agency without considering the objections of the concerned Gram Panchayat as well as the estate right holders who have objected to the grant. It is also observed that the allotment has been made in eight small plots. The Deputy Commissioner has also failed to appreciate the above facts in appeal before him and has based his findings primarily on limitation without going into the infirmities committed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) in sanctioning the nautro land. 7. In view of the above reasons, I agree with the recommendation of the Commissioner, Mandi division. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi dated 27.11.2006 passed ill file no. 2 of 2006 and the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Chachiyot at Gohar Sanctioning grant of nautor land are set aside. The case is remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) to decide the case afresh in the light of observation made above and also after following the proper procedure as laid down in Nautor Rules. 8. 2 of 2006 and the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Chachiyot at Gohar Sanctioning grant of nautor land are set aside. The case is remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) to decide the case afresh in the light of observation made above and also after following the proper procedure as laid down in Nautor Rules. 8. Record of the courts below be returned and the file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion. 9. Announced in open court today the 4th May, 2010 at Mandi. M.R..B.