IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 112/2007 Reserved on: 11.9.2009 Decided on:15.10. 2009 Sukhdev Singh and another. …Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. No. For the petitioners : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the State Government out of Khasra No.1 area measuring 0-19-51 hectares situated in Mohal Tatal, Mauza Punder, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, allotted an area measuring 0-5 malras to Smt. Begam and land measuring 0-5 marlas was allotted to Sh. Sant Ram son of Dhani Ram under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Land Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974. The patta was issued by the competent authority on 16.4.1981. The land was inherited by the petitioners vide separate mutations as per wills in the year 2002. In Jamabandi for the year 2003- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 04, khasra No.1/1 has been described as Khasra No. 404/1 and Khasra No. 1/2 has been described as khasra No. 405/1 measuring 0-00-97 hectares. The Commissioner (Additional District Magistrate) cancelled the allotment regarding Khasra Nos. 1/1 and 1/2 under the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Scheme, 1975 on 4.12.2006. The petitioners have assailed order dated 4.12.2006. Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate has vehemently argued that the land was allotted in the year 1978-79 and the same could not be cancelled on 4.12.2006. He then contended that the petitioners have inherited the land by way of wills and the same could not be resumed by the State Government at belated stage. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the impugned order dated 4.12.2006. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. The land has been allotted to one Smt. Begum and Sh. Sant Ram under the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Land Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974. The land has been allotted as per the pleadings for the construction of houses under the Gandhi Kuteer Yozna. Smt. Begum and Sh. Sant Ram constructed their houses on Khasra No. 134/1 and 134/2. The land allotted to these persons was not utilized for the purpose of construction of houses. The petitioners have inherited the land and the mutations No.43 and 44 were attested on 30.7.2002 and 25.7.2002. The houses constructed by Smt. Begum and Sh. Sant Ram were given water and electricity connections. The allottees were living in these houses during the life time as recorded by the competent authority. The allotment of land in favour of Smt. Begum and Sh. Sant Ram was objected by the 3 villagers. It is in these circumstances that they have constructed their houses on Khasra No. 134/1 and 134/2. It was imperative for the allottees to use the land for the purpose to which it was granted. The petitioners have not placed any contemporaneous material on record to suggest that Smt. Begum and Sh. Sant Ram had taken over the possession of the land within two years after allotment. The complaint was filed against the petitioners and the competent authority has passed the order under sub clause (4) of clause 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Scheme, 1975. The laudable object of the scheme is to help the landless persons to enable them to construct houses. The land allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was not used for the purpose of construction of houses since they have constructed their houses on khasra No. 134/1 and 134/2 instead of khasra No. 1/1 and 1/2. The Commissioner has passed a well reasoned order while cancelling the allotment made in favour of Smt. Begum and Sh. Sant Ram. The competent authority before passing the order has got the matter inquired through the Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Nurpur. In view of the inquiry got conducted by the Tehsildar and SDO (Civil), Nurpur independently by the Commissioner (Additional District Magistrate), Kangra at Dharamshala, the report of the local commissioner in civil suit cannot be given any credence. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the order passed by the competent authority. Smt. Begum and Sh. Sant Ram have not utilized the land for the purpose of construction of houses. This fact was brought to the notice of the higher authorities. The submission of Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate that the allotment could not be cancelled belatedly deserves rejection. The competent authority is competent to pass 4 appropriate orders when the illegality is brought to its notice as is in the present case. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid reasoning, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. 15.10. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*