IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 26 of 2009. Date of decision : 30.7.2009. Jai Chand …Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. G.D.Verma Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.C.Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra and Mr. Vikas Rathore, No. 1 to 3 Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent No.4: Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was rejected. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant was sanctioned land measuring 2 bighas 5 biswas under the Himachal Pradesh Grant of Nautor Land to Landless Persons and other Eligible Persons Scheme, 1975 on 11.1.1980. One of the conditions of this grant was that the land in question should be broken by the allottee within two years of the allotment. The land was mutated in favour of the appellant and revenue entries were made in this behalf. According to the appellant, during the settlement operation, the land was wrongly shown in the ownership of the State and in occupation of the Estate Rights Holders. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Therefore, the appellant moved an application for correction of the revenue records. The Collector, Kinnaur, allowed the application for correction of the revenue entries on 27.12.2003. He, however, came to the conclusion that since the petitioner had not broken the land even though more than 20 years had elapsed, the Tehsildar Kalpa should initiate action for resumption of the land. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, which appeal was allowed on 16.11.2004. Thereafter, respondent No.4 filed an application on 29.7.2005 for resumption of the land allotted in favour of the appellant. This application was allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Kalpa on 13.3.2006. An appeal was filed against the said order to the Deputy Commissioner who allowed the same on 12.6.2006 and directed that in case the appellant breaks the land within three months he would not be evicted. The respondent No.4 filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, who accepted the revision and upheld the order of the resumption passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kalpa. This led to the filing of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge also came to the conclusion that the petitioner had already been allotted land in his own village Kothi. Therefore, was not entitled for any land in village Telingi. Mainly two grounds have been urged before us. Firstly that the land was granted in favour of the petitioner on 11.1.1980 and mutation had been attested in favour of the appellant. This order could not have been cancelled after 26 years. According to Shri G.D.Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, action, if any, should have been taken within two years. 3 We are unable to accept such an argument. Two years time was the outer limit given to the allottee to break the land. The purpose of giving Nautor is to give land for cultivation purposes. If the land is not cultivated, the entire purpose of allotting the land is frustrated. The appellant did not break the land till 2003. When this fact came to the notice of the Collector, he directed the Tehsildar to start resumption proceedings. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not take care to cultivate the land. This fact is apparent from the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of the petitioner in which he granted three months further time to the petitioner to break the land. It is thus apparent that even when the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the year 2006 the land had not been broken. The appellant places reliance on the report of the Tehsildar dated 14.4.2006 in which it is mentioned that the land in question has been broken and apple plants have been planted on the same. No age of the plants is given nor the date breaking the land is given in the report. It is apparent that the land was broken only after the Deputy Commissioner passed an order. The Deputy Commissioner had no authority to extend time that too after a period of 25 years. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 30th July, 2009. ( V.K.Ahuja ) ™ Judge.