JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Since, both the aforesaid appeals stand directed against a common judgment, hence, they are being disposed of by a common verdict. 2. The instant appeals are directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, whereby, the plaintiff's suit for rendition, of, a decree for declaration, as well as for, rendition of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction qua the suit khasra numbers, was, hence dismissed. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he was owner in possession of suit land comprised in khasra No.839/780 min, 830/78 min, new khasra Nos. 162 and 163, measuring 352.10 sq. decimeters. It has been pleaded that the plaintiff applied for the grant of Nautor land as landless persons and he was granted land measuring 5.1 bighas by Tehsildar vide his order dated 21.5.1977. The plaintiff was put in possession, who become the owner of the land. The suit land was not to be sold for a period of 15 years. A revision petition was filed by defendants No.2 and 3 after 17 years of grant before Deputy Commissioner, who vide his order of 21.04.1994, set aide the order of grant without conducting any enquiry. Defendants No. 4 and 5 to whom land was sold by plaintiff were never heard by the Deputy Commissioner and as the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was illegal, the suit is liable to be decreed. 4. The defendants contested the suit and filed separate written statements. Defendant No.1, State of H.P. in its written statement has taken preliminary objections inter alia maintainability, jurisdiction, valuation etc. On merits, they pleaded that the condition of sale stood raised from 15 years to 20 years, and therefore, the sale in favour of defendants Nos. 4 and 5 was contrary to the scheme. It was pleaded that the order passed by Deputy Commissioner was legal and as such the grant was rightly cancelled. 5. Defendants No. 2 and 3, in their written statement pleaded that the grant was rightly cancelled and sale in favour of defendants No.4 and 5 was wrong, and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 6. It was pleaded that the order passed by Deputy Commissioner was legal and as such the grant was rightly cancelled. 5. Defendants No. 2 and 3, in their written statement pleaded that the grant was rightly cancelled and sale in favour of defendants No.4 and 5 was wrong, and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 6. Defendants No.4 and 5, who purchased the suit land from the plaintiff pleaded that they purchased the land after valid enquiry and a valid sale deed was executed in their favour, and, as such, the suit is liable to be decreed. 7. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statements of the defendants, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statements and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the order dated 21.4.1994 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur is wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the present suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD-1. 4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit, as alleged? OPD-1. 5. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD-1. 6. Whether the plaintiff has sold a part of the suit land to defendants No.4 and 5, as alleged, if so, to what effect? OPP. 7. Relief. 9. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant herein. In appeals, preferred therefrom by the plaintiff/appellant herein as also by defendant No.4 Bimla, before, the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed both the appeals, and, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 10. Now the plaintiff/appellant herein, now substituted by his legal heirs, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeals, before, this Court, wherein he assails the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeals came up for admission, this Court, on 24.06.2005, admitted the appeals instituted by the plaintiff/appellant, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- 1. When the appeals came up for admission, this Court, on 24.06.2005, admitted the appeals instituted by the plaintiff/appellant, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the learned Courts below have gravely erred in holding that the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition under paragraph 9-A of H.P. Grant of Nautor Land to Landless Persons and other Eligible Persons Scheme, 1975 against the settled position of law as laid down by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No.362 of 1995 captioned Nant Ram and others versus State of H.P. and others, (2003) 2 ShimLC 205 while interpreting the aforesaid scheme? Substantial question of Law No.1. 11. The learned counsel appearing, for, the appellant, has contended with vigour (i) that with this Court, making a pronouncement, upon, a case titled as Nant Ram & others vs. State of H.P. & others, (2003) 2 ShimLC 205 qua apposite Rule 30, borne in the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968 as amended upto December, 1988, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "30. Revision - (1) The Financial Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed off by any officer subordinate to him. (2) The Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any case pending before or disposed off by any officer subordinate to him. (3) If, in any case, in which the Commissioner has called for the record, he is of the opinion that the proceeding taken order made should be modified or reversed, he shall report the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Financial Commissioner. (4) The Financial Commissioner may in any case called for by himself under sub rule (I) or reported to him under sub-rule (iii) pass such order as he thinks fit. Provided that he shall not under this rule pass any order reversing or modifying any proceedings or orders of the subordinate Revenue Officer without giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard. Provided that he shall not under this rule pass any order reversing or modifying any proceedings or orders of the subordinate Revenue Officer without giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard. solitarily empowering, the Financial Commissioner to render a revisional order vis-a-vis recalling, of, grant of land by way of nautor vis-a-vis the grantee, (ii) hence, any exercise, of, revisional jurisdiction, by the Deputy Commissioner concerned, under the mandate embodied in paragraph 9-A of the H. P. Grant of Nautor Land to Landless Persons and other Eligible Persons Scheme, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme of 1975), hence wanting in legal efficacy, (iii) besides extantly with the Deputy Commissioner concerned, hence, also, while under Ex. PE rescinding the grant, his rather deriving powers, from, para 9-A of the Scheme, thereupon, his verdict is also rendered to be wanting in jurisdiction, (iv) and the order making the apposite cancellation of grant being vitiated, (v) thereupon, he reiteratedly contends, with, hereat also alike therewith revisional jurisdiction being inaptly exercised by the Deputy Commissioner, purportedly under paragraph 9-A, of, the Scheme of 1975, whereas, the aforesaid jurisdiction, is solitarily, under Rule 30 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968, rather vested vis-a-vis the Financial Commissioner, hence, with hereat, an alike factual scenario emerging, vis-a-vis the pronouncement recorded by this Court, in Nant Ram's case, empowers this Court, to, answer the substantial question of law vis-a-vis the appellant. 12. Before proceeding to dwell, upon, the applicability of the law laid down, by this Court, in Nant Ram's case, it is to be borne in mind, (a) that paragraph 9-A, occurring, in the apposite Scheme of 1975, standing promulgated in the year 1975, apparently, hence under apposite paragraph 9-A, the apt jurisdiction, for, validly making an order qua recall, of grant, hence vested in the Commissioner, after, his evidently meteing compliances, with, all the procedures laid therein. (b) Since, the phrase "Commissioner" is undefined in the apposite scheme, hence, for lack of phrase "Commissioner", being defined in the apposite scheme, (c) thereupon, it is to be concluded of import thereof, being vis-a-vis the designation, of, Deputy Commissioner, and, also the Deputy Commissioner concerned, falling within the ambit of parlance borne, by the coinage "Commissioner", occurring, in, paragraph 9- A, of, the apposite Scheme. However, hereat, the apt proceedings, for cancellation of the grant, rather occurred in the year 1994, whereat, hence, the amended provisions vis-a-vis the Nautor Land Rules, 1968 came into being w.e.f. December, 1988, (d) thereupon hence with prevalence, of, the aforesaid rules vis-a-vis, the, time of launching, of, extant proceedings, by the Deputy Commissioner concerned, (c) renders, the mandate enshrined therein, to, warrant an allusion thereto, besides the apt provisions borne therein, whereunder, the Deputy Commissioner, is, empowered to resume possession of land, provisions whereof occur in Rule 25 of H.P. Nautor Land Rules, are also enjoined to be alluded to, provisions where of stand extracted hereinafter: "25. Deputy Commissioner to pass orders regarding Resumption of possession-The Deputy Commissioner, may, on receipt of a report submitted to him under Sub-Rule (b) of the last foregoing rules, pass such orders as he deems fit after giving an opportunity to the person affected to be heard." Moreover, the exercise, of, powers borne in the aforestated provisions, would assume an aura, of, validation, upon theirs evidently standing exercised, after compliances, being evidently meted by him vis-a-vis the mandate enshrined in Rule 24 of the H.P. Nautor Land Rules, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "24. Report by the Range Forest Office regarding Defaulter to be called before resumption- When the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) is satisfied that a grantee has committed a breach of the conditions of his grant, he shall before ordering resumption under these rules, give the grantee an opportunity to appear and state his objections to the cancellation and resumption, and having recorded the statement, he may either (a) extend the period for the fulfillment of the conditions of the grant by one year for valid reasons to e recorded in writing or (b) recommend to the Deputy Commissioner that a longer extension be condoned with or without payment of penalty, or that the grant may be resumed." Apparently, a close studied cumulative perusal, of, the aforesaid provisions, and, of Ex. PE, for hence discerning qua apposite statutory compliances being evidently embodied therewithin, (i) makes disclosures that the Deputy Commissioner, while, exercising jurisdiction, for recalling the order granting land, by way nautor vis-a-vis grantee, his being enjoined to, prior thereto, hence, rather within, the ambit of Rule 24 of the H.P. Nautor Land Rules, elicit the apposite reports, pointedly, from, the SDO concerned, (ii) nowat in consonance therewith, revelations occur therein qua apparent breaches being committed vis-a-vis the conditions, of patta, as issued by the competent authority vis-a-vis the grantee also qua the grantee, despite, his being ineligible for grant, and, his rather by practising proactive suggetio falsi and suppresio veri, hence, obtaining grant of nautor land. (iii), and, also echoings occur therein, qua evident meteings, of, aforesaid mandatory compliances by the Deputy Commissioner, especially preceding his, pronouncing Ex.PE, echoings whereof, are, not concerted to be wanting in efficacy, (c) nor the reports relied by him, are concerted to be belied, wherein, the apposite breaches, are, apparently unraveled. Consequently, for, lack of apposite onslaughts being cast, by the appellant vis-a-vis, apt evident breaches being made by the grantee, and, also qua the apt recitals borne therein, qua his hence being ineligible for the grant, (d) rather constrains a conclusion, of, per se the grant of nautor land vis-a-vis the appellant hence wanting in efficacy, and, its grant vis-a-vis him, being a sequel of his actively committing vices of suggestio falsi and supressio veri. 13. Be that as it may, with, hence visibly hereat, for all the reasons aforestated, rather the mandate of Rule 25 of H.P. Nautor Land Rules, holding prevalence at the time, of, making of an apposite pronouncement, borne in Ex. 13. Be that as it may, with, hence visibly hereat, for all the reasons aforestated, rather the mandate of Rule 25 of H.P. Nautor Land Rules, holding prevalence at the time, of, making of an apposite pronouncement, borne in Ex. PE, and, also compliances of mandates thereof, being apparently meted, (a) thereupon, any nomenclatuing in Ex.PE, of, the Deputy Commissioner concerned, while making the apposite verdict, his exercising jurisdiction under paragraph 9-A, of, the apposite scheme of 1975, cannot be construed to be stripping him, of, jurisdiction bestowed upon him, under, the apt Rules, as were in force, at the apposite time, especially the ones' borne in Rules 24 and 25, (b) besides even if assumingly, paragraph 9-A of the apposite Scheme of 1975, is inaptly quoted in Ex.PE, to be the source of derivation, of, jurisdiction, of, recall, of grant, by the Deputy Commissioner, thereupon, also when as aforestated, it stands concluded, that, the designation 'Commissioner" occurring in paragraph 9-A of the apposite scheme, being not construable to be holding any import, of it bearing any connectivity with the designation, of, Financial Commissioner, (c) thereupon, this Court re-emphasisingly, makes a conclusion, of the Deputy Commissioner also falling, within, the connotation ascribable vis-a-vis phrase 'Commissioner', occurring, in Rule 9-A, (d) whereupon, the exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 9-A, by the Deputy Commissioner, in, his making a pronouncement, borne in Ex. PE, cannot be, concluded to be vitiated, even if assumingly, it was not in force and rather Rules 24, and 25 were in force, in contemporaneity vis-a-vis his making the relevant orders, of recalling the order of the apposite grant. 14. Be that as it may, the effect of the aforesaid conclusion, is of any purported, mis-nomenclaturing, in Ex. PE, cannot be, concluded to be vitiated, even if assumingly, it was not in force and rather Rules 24, and 25 were in force, in contemporaneity vis-a-vis his making the relevant orders, of recalling the order of the apposite grant. 14. Be that as it may, the effect of the aforesaid conclusion, is of any purported, mis-nomenclaturing, in Ex. PE, of, the Deputy Commissioner, hence deriving his powers under Rule 9-A of the apposite Scheme of 1975, even if, it was not in prevalence thereat, being of no consequence, for the reasons (a) given any inapt reference therein, of the source of derivation, of, power by the Deputy Commissioner concerned, while, his making the apposite order, being subsumed, by his evidently meteing compliances, with the mandate of Rules 24 and 25, of the Nautor Land Rules, rules whereof were thereat prevalent, and, also held clout, (b) Source, of derivations, of powers by the Deputy Commissioner concerned, is legally more worthwhile, than, any misnomenclaturing in Ex.PE, of, the apt source wherefrom, the jurisdiction of recall, hence stood assumed, more so, when the source is embedded in the apt thereat applicable rules, vires whereof remains intact, hence is an undefiled source. 15. Furthermore, the effect, of, the aforesaid inference, are, (a) of this Court hence being inclined, to not, apply hereat the pronouncement recorded by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Nant Rams, (2003) 2 ShimLC 205 , rendered, upon, a fragmentary readings of Rule 30, whereunder the power of revision, is solitarily vested in Financial Commissioner, (ii) more so, when in Nant Ram's case, it stands, concluded of the revisional jurisdiction, as exercised therein by the authority concerned, being not exerciseable by it, hence it concomitantly concluded of the order of recall being vitiated. (iii) Emphasisingly also the pronouncement made by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Nant Ram's case, arises, for reasons aforesaid, from misreadings of applicability, at the relevant time, of the apposite rules, and, also arises from, thereupon, its relegating into insignificance, of apt redundancys, of, mis-nomenclaturing, of, derivation of powers by the authorities concerned, in resuming or recalling the grant, (iv) whereupon hence rather it ipso facto inaptly concluded, qua hence the source, of, derivation of powers, hence also becoming eroded, (v) thereupon, rather its emphasising upon the misnomenclaturing, in the apt orders, the source of derivation, of the apt powers, appears to lead the coordinate bench, of, this Court, conclude, of, hence the apposite order being vitated.(vi), whereas, when the exercise, of, powers hereat, are, rested upon evident compliances being demonstrably meted, with, thereat applicable provisions, especially vis-a-vis the ones in operation in contemporaneity vis-a-vis the renditions, of, apposite orders of recall. (vii) AND hence visibly, thereupon, rather the source of derivations, of, powers being intact, contrarily the co-ordinate bench of this Court, has rather meted reverence, to, Rule 30, which though solitarily vests the jurisdiction, of, revision vis-avis the Financial Commissioner, (viii) yet with the Deputy Commissioner, hereat rather validly making the apposite order of recall, upon his exercising powers derived from a tenanble source, thereupon, his verdict is unvitiated, (ix) especially when the powers exercised by him, though, is reflected to arise from a purportedly misnomenclatured source, misnomenclatruring whereof is rendered redundant, given the existence thereat of a valid source, of, derivation, of, powers, source whereof is borne in Rules 24 and 25 of the H.P. Nautor Land Rules, AND also when compliances, wherewith, were, meted in the strictest terms, by the authority, while its pronouncing Ex.PE. Consequently, this Court, dis-concurs with the pronouncement recorded, by a co-ordinate bench of this Court, in Nant Ram's case. 16. The learned counsel appearing, for the appellant, has contended that with the Full Bench, of, this Court, in, paragraph No.21, of, case titled as Mangheru Etc. vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & another, (1982) AIR(HP) 1, paragraph No.21 whereof stand extracted hereinafter, hence making conclusions (i) of the apposite powers being exerciseable, within, a reasonable time, hence, with much time elapsing since the grant of nautor land, thereupon, infraction occurring vis-a-vis the mandate of paragraph No.21, of Mangheru's case. paragraph No.21 of Mangheru's casereads as under:- "21. paragraph No.21 of Mangheru's casereads as under:- "21. Now, there is no dispute that the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case should determine 'a reasonable time'. For example, if a grantee has suppressed material facts or has obtained the allotment by playing a fraud or a deception 'the reasonable time' will have to be determined with reference to the time when the fraud or deception came to light. Various cases where a party had concealed material facts and succeeded in obtaining the allotment have come to our notice. We cannot allow a party to reap the fruits of his deception or fraud simply on the ground that it had successfully kept them concealed over a sufficient long period of time. However, one the fraud is uncovered then action is required to be taken within a reasonable time thereafter. Article 56 of the Limitation Act lays down a limitation of three years from the date of the knowledge of fraud, and we are of the opinion that it will be reasonable to lay down that ordinarily within a period of three years from the date of knowledge of fraud the suo motu powers can be exercised." However, the aforesaid submission is erroneously made, (i) as therein it is encapsulated, that, the reasonable time where within the apposite orders of recall, can be validly made by the authority concerned, being fathomable from the time when, the apposite fraud, and, deception comes to light. Since, the apposite fraud and deception, in the instant case, came to light, only some time prior to the recording of Ex.PE, hence, the factum of apt powers, being under Ex.PE, hence exercised with an inordinate delay, is inconsequential, also hence no support can be derived, from the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of this Court, rendered in Mangheru's case. 17. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as also by the learned trial Court, being based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court, have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the defendants /respondents and against the appellants /plaintiffs. 18. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court, have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the defendants /respondents and against the appellants /plaintiffs. 18. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present Regular Second Appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the judgements and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.