IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. L.P.A. No. 32 of 2003. Decided on: 26.8.2008. ________________________________________________________ Sant Lal & Ors. … Appellants. Versus Hari Nand & Ors. … Respondents. _____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Bhalla, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. V.D. Khidta, Advocate. For respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For respondents No. 3 to 5 : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. __________________________________________________________________ Jagdish Bhalla, C.J. (Oral) This appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition assailing the order of the Deputy Commissioner has been allowed. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the Deputy Commissioner had no authority to exercise the powers of revision under paragraph 9(A) of the H.P. Grant of Nautor Land to Landless and other Eligible Persons Scheme, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Scheme, for canceling the allotment in favour of writ petitioner No.1. While considering the contentions, the learned Single Judge had relied upon Nant Ram Vs. State 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes. 2 of H.P., 2003 (2) Sim.L.J. 1220, wherein it has been held that the Deputy Commissioner acting under paragraph 9 (A) of the Scheme cannot cancel the grant on the ground that the person in whose favour the grant was made has contravened the condition of grant by transferring the land granted or a part thereof in any manner within the prohibited period. Similarly, it has been held by the learned Single Judge that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to show the interference with respect to the cancellation of grant under paragraph 9 (A) of the Scheme on the ground that it was not being cultivated. Further, we find that there is nothing on record to show that there is any land in the name of Shri Hari Nand-respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has the right to show the interference. However, he has failed to substantiate his argument. From the perusal of paragraph 9 (A) of the Nautor Rules, 1975, we find that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. Similarly, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to show interference with respect to grant of nautor land. In the light of the above, the appeal is dismissed. (Jagdish Bhalla), Chief Justice. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. August 26, 2008. (cr)