IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Regular Second Appeal No.348 of 1998. Date of decision:16.3.2009. State of H.P. …Appellant Versus Murari Lal …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Appellant: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This appeal has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No.1, Mandi in a suit praying for a decree for declaration and injunction by the respondent-plaintiff herein, in a suit challenging the cancellation of nautor allotment of land made to him. The plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction inter alia pleading therein that he had been granted nautor land, being a 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 landless person and eligible for such grant, under the Himachal Pradesh Grant of Nautor Land to Landless Persons and other Eligible Persons, Scheme, 1975 and he was put in possession of the land allotted to him in the year 1981, pursuant to order passed by the Tehsildar, Chachiot on 29th December, 1980. The total land granted to the plaintiff-respondent was 2-7-5 Bighas. The plaintiff-respondent pleaded that after the allotment he had constructed a single storeyed house on this land and made it cultivable after spending considerable amount for engaging labour etc. Some disgruntled elements in the village lodged a complaint against the plaintiff-respondent with the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, who cancelled the allotment on 20th December, 1985. The plaintiff-respondent filed a Civil Writ Petition No.153 of 1986 in this Court which petition was accepted on 3rd July, 1991 and the order of cancellation was quashed with a direction issued to the Deputy Commissioner to provide an opportunity to the plaintiff- respondent to present his case. Again, by his order dated 20th January, 1992 (Ex.P-2) in remand case No.3 of 1991, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the grant. The trial Court, on the ten settled issues held against the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed. The learned appellate Court, after thoroughly reconsidering the entire material on the record has decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The State is now in appeal. This appeal was admitted on 11.9.1998 on the following substantial questions of law:- 3 “1. Whether the lower appellate Court committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge upholding the cancellation of the nautor to be in accordance with law? 2. Whether the lower appellate Court has mis-read and mis-construed the evidence on record in interfering with the order of cancellation passed by the competent authority? Learned Additional Advocate General has urged that the judgment passed by the learned District Judge cannot be sustained. She submits that there was power vested with the Deputy Commissioner under Rule-9A of the Nautor Rules whereby the Deputy Commissioner is vested with powers to take up cases suo motu and to cancel the grant of nautor land made if he finds the person is not eligible etc. In particular, she has emphasized that the witnesses of the plaintiff themselves do not support his case. PW-1 is the plaintiff who has testified in support of the allegations made in the plaint and prove the existence of facts which are the conditions of eligibility. PW-2 Ghanshayam Lal has remained firm in his deposition that the plaintiff was eligible. Learned counsel has emphasized that the evidence of these two witnesses when read with the evidence of the objector, Keshav Ram, DW-1, clearly proves that the petitioner was ineligible. 4 Reference was also made to the evidence of DW-3 Narayan Chand who tried to show that the plaintiff is not in possession of this land but in his cross-examination he accepted that the demarcation report was not accurate. The learned District Judge while dealing with the submissions made before him, considered Ex.P-2 which is the order of the Collector and concluded that this order was not sustainable for the reason it did not establish that the plaintiff- respondent had more income than the ceiling limit prescribed or that the plaintiff was not an agriculturist. The learned District Judge held and rightly so that the report of the revenue agency Ex.D-3 (which is the basis of the order Ex.P-2) is of the year 1991 and is blissfully silent about the eligibility of the plaintiff- respondent for the nautor granted in the year 1980, when such grant was made. The Court also held that no evidence except Ex.P-2 was placed on the record to show that the plaintiff- respondent is ineligible for the grant. In the facts and circumstances, the appeal was accordingly dismissed. I cannot persuade myself to hold that the learned District Judge has not applied the correct principles of law applicable. The order Ex.P-2 based on the report Ex.D-3 does not at all establish that the plaintiff-respondent was ineligible for the grant. Strangely, no effort has been made to determine the eligibility of the petitioner on the date of allotment but the state of affair which has come into existence after 11 years is being used for the purposes of taking away the grant. This is hardly a 5 satisfactory way of exercising quasi judicial powers and deprive a person of his property. The revenue agency was well advised that reports of ineligibility were being made by disgruntled village elements and in these circumstances there was an onerous responsibility on the Authorities to ensure that a proper inquiry was held. I cannot persuade myself to take a different view of the evidence on record even if I re-appreciate the entire evidence. Both these questions are answered against the petitioner. This appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. March 16, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.