IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No.610 of 2000. Date of decision: 22.05.2008. State of H.P. ….appellant Versus Smt.Kalampati & Others ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr.Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This is the defendant’s second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Courts below against the defendant-appellant restraining it by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from interfering in the suit land/property. This case has a very chequered history. The plaintiff, Shri Ramanand, filed a suit for declaration claiming that the order of the Financial Commissioner Ex.PE cancelling the grant of nautor land of Khasra No.457/1, measuring 5 Bighas 2 Biswas is without jurisdiction, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. A decree for permanent prohibitory 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 injunction restraining the appellant-defendant from interfering in this land situated in village Thana Chak, Pargana Nawar, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. was granted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff pleaded that on 30th April, 1969 some right holders approached the Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu to review the order of nautor grant made in favour of the plaintiff on 10.12.1965 (Ex.PF) on some grounds including the ground of concealment of facts. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 16.9.1969 rejected the application as being barred by time, where-after they approached the Financial Commissioner by way of a revision and on 2.1.1974 vide order Ex.PH the revision petition was accepted and the grant made in favour of the plaintiff was set aside. A writ petition being CWP No.69/1974 was filed in this Court against the order of the Financial Commissioner and by a detailed order dated 7th December, 1978 (Ex.PG) of the Division Bench of this Court, the revision was set aside with the following directions: “According to these Nautor Rules it is not for the Financial Commissioner to resume the land for the breach of any of the conditions mentioned in the Patta. Therefore, if the Financial Commissioner thinks that there has been a breach of any of the conditions of the Patta he has only to make a report 3 to the Deputy Commissioner who can proceed for the said purpose only as provided by above quoted rule 25. Other grounds mentioned in the writ petition are not pressed. In view of what is stated above, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner found at Annexure-B dated 2nd January, 1974 is set aside, but the matter is referred back to him for necessary action in view of the directions given above. Rule is accordingly made absolute without any order as to costs”. The learned trial Court by its judgment dated 20.9.1988 decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding all the issues in his favour and rejecting the defence set up by the appellant-defendant on the ground of limitation, locus standi, jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit. The learned District Judge has reaffirmed the findings of the learned trial Court on each and every issue and point raised before it. The defendant is now in this second appeal. Appeal was admitted by this Court on 12.1.2001 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether in view of the Nautor Rules 1968 framed by the H.P. Government which is a self contained Code, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the Suit? 4 2. Whether both the lower courts below have misinterpreted the provisions of law and facts of the case? 3. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower courts below are liable to be set aside being against the Nautor Rules? These very questions were urged before the Courts below. They, in-fact, reiterate the same point in a different manner that is to say that the provisions of Nautor Rules, 1968 bar the jurisdiction of this Court and that the Courts are in error in entertaining the suit and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Issue No.2 before the learned trial Court was, “Whether orders of the Financial Commissioner, namely, Ex.PE and Ex.PH, are without jurisdiction?” Ex.PE is an order passed after the judgment rendered by this Court. The Financial Commissioner has given short shrift and brushed aside the direction made by this Court in CWP No.69/1974. Even considering the observation made by the Financial Commissioner to the effect that a Full Bench of the High court is at variance with the judgment rendered in Ex.PH, and that the judgment of the Full Bench is binding, the order Ex.PE is nothing but a non- reasoned, non-speaking order which does not give any reason. It holds: 5 “4. There is no dispute that the nautor land was obtained by Sh.Rama Nand fraudulently by concealing the fact that he owned more than 53 bighas of land. In view of the above fact and also keeping in view the latest decision of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Court, I hereby cancel the grant of nautor land.” This is not a judicial determination of a controversy. Even if it is assumed that this statutory authority was; (a) not bound by the Division Bench order in view of the Full Bench judgment passed by this Court which is at variance with the directions issued by the Full Bench; (b) the grant had indeed been obtained by fraud by Shri Rama Nand. What those facts are, how the case has become undisputed, how and why such facts are undisputed is not clear. Surely no party can approach a Court on the ground that he committed fraud and then urging this as a fact of admission against his own interest. The haste with which the case has been dealt with and the manner in which the factual determination has been made by the Financial Commissioner in dealing with allegations of fraud etc. deserves to be deprecated. While dealing with the rights of the citizens, it is the fundamental duty of every statutory authority to deal with the case on the facts on record and not to brush aside the same with a terse one line order. Admittedly, the 6 Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the petition seeking setting aside of the grant on a number of grounds, which in revision could not be set aside except by a reasoned and a speaking order showing the working of the mind of the statutory authority and the reasons for differing with the order of the Deputy Commissioner. On all these three questions, as urged in this court as substantial questions of law, the learned District Judge, holds that the ground on which cancellation made by the Financial Commissioner by his order dated 2.1.1974 Ex.PH, are that (i) the plaintiff had more than the prescribed limit of land on the date on which he applied for nautor, (ii) the affidavit filed by him did not contain the exact information and (iii) the land was not put to use for which it was granted, within the period prescribed. The plaintiff has pleaded and proved by clear and cogent evidence on record that not only that the rules did not provide for the cancellation of grant on the aforesaid grounds, but even the said grounds had no factual foundation. The affidavit filed by the plaintiff was true and he had put the land to its proper use but for the fact that the objectors themselves had uprooted the trees and put him to loss. These facts were proved by clear and cogent evidence and the State had been unable to rebut this evidence. 7 The appellate Court held that the Financial Commissioner was bound by the directions issued by this Court in writ jurisdiction, placing reliance on judgments in Balaswaraswami Varu and another Vs. Mallidi Dorayya and others, AIR 1972, Andhra Pradesh 250, Scientific Instruments Co.Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs (Valuation Section) and another, AIR 1976 Calcutta 38 and Chote Lal vs. Kalyan Prasad and others, AIR 1987 Rajasthan 75. That apart, under Article 226 this Court being highest Constitutional Authority in the State, all subordinate Courts and authorities are bound by the direction issued and it was not the Financial Commissioner’s domain to have ignored the order passed by this Court and to have proceeded in its own in a cavalier fashion not only in breach of judicial propriety and over-reaching the order passed in Civil Writ Petition, but disposing of the revision petition by a terse one line order which determines nothing. Having considered the appeal in its entirety including the factual matrix and the fact that the plaintiffs-respondents have successfully established on the record that neither the conditions invoked for the cancellation of the grant, suppression of facts for non-user or change of user of the land having been established on the record and further the Financial Commissioner dealing with the matter on the basis of non-determination of the facts before him by simply 8 observing that the facts are undisputed and admitted, the submissions made on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted. Surely, it was not for the Financial Commissioner to have abdicated his statutory duty and reduce adjudication to terse one line order. The valuable rights of a citizen cannot be taken away in a manner not authorized by law. In the totality of the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the appeal which is dismissed. Judgments of both the Courts below are confirmed. It is held that the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, more especially, when questions of fact regarding the title of the respondents-plaintiffs have been proved by them. Both the Courts below have proceeded rightly and there is nothing on record to show or establish that there is any misinterpretation of the provisions of law. There shall be no order as to costs. May 22, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.