RSA 321/2006 3.1.2008. Present: Mr. G.R. Palsara, counsel for the Appellant.. Mr. Rajan Dewan, Addl. AG, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. RSA No. 321/2006. This is the plaintiff’s appeal against the concurrent findings of the two courts below dismissing the suit for declaration praying for a decree that that the order dated 4.2.1994 passed in file No. 2 of 1992 and 3 of 1992 by Deputy Commissioner, Mandi passed in file No. 2 of 1994 and order dated 8.6.2001 passed by Financial Commissioner, Appeals Shimla in file No. 243/95 are wrong, illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice with a further prayer that a permanent prohibitory injunction be granted in his favour and against the defendants-respondents qua the suit land of which he claims to be the owner. The learned trial court, after a detailed consideration of the evidence on the record, dismissed the suit. An appeal preferred before the District Judge has also been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. He submits that a number of issues which, according to him are involved in the appeal. However, I am satisfied that the questions which he raises for consideration are all pure questions of fact which cannot be interfered with in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellant also had the advantage of having his rights adjudicated up to the Financial Commissioner who has also held against him. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is a hard case where the -2- appellant is being deprived of a lawful grant having been made in his favour and that he was in no manner privy to a second request for grant of natour land. Without entering into the merits of this contention raised, this appeal is disposed of with direction that it will be open to the appellant to approach the State or any one of its functionaries to deal with and decide the grievance of the appellant. In case the appellant makes a representation, the Officer/officials concerned shall receive such representation and hear the appellant before disposing it of. It goes without saying that any order passed would be a speaking order disclosing reasons for its decision. All miscellaneous application shall stand disposed of and all interim order shall stand vacated. Record of the courts below, if any, be sent back immediately. 3rd January, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (cm) Judge.