IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. R.S.A. No. 497 of 1998. Decided on: 18.3.2009. __________________________________________________ State of H.P. … Appellant. Versus Pritam Chand … Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). This regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 22-S/13 of 1995 dated 1.7.1998. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for convenience sake, filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge (1), Rohru for declaration and injunction. The case of the plaintiff was that the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla had allowed the exchange on 19.4.1982. The mutation was attested on 3.5.1982. However, at the instance of one Narain Dass, the review proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Commissioner on 12.11.1984. The Deputy Commissioner reviewed the order on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 26.6.1985. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The same was rejected by the Divisional Commissioner on 22.8.1985. The order was also affirmed by the Financial Commissioner on 27.8.1991 (Ext. PW1/C). The suit was contested by the respondent/defendant, hereinafter referred to as the defendant for convenience sake. It was primarily contended by the defendant that the land could not be permitted to be exchanged due to growth of thick forests. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 16.1.1995. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Shimla. He allowed the appeal on 1.7.1998. The present regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the lower Appellate Court construed the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Rules, 1968, particularly Rule 27 in the proper perspective and the judgment of the lower Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge is vitiated on account of such mis-construction of the Rule? 2. Whether the lower Appellate Court mis- construed the document Ex. DA/DB in reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge? The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla dated 1.7.1998 is not sustainable. He has argued for restoration of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 16.1.1995. Mr. Ajay Kumar has supported the judgment and decree dated 1.7.1998. A very short question is involved in this lis. The exchange was permitted by the Deputy Commissioner on 19.4.1982. The mutation was attested on 3.5.1982. It is necessary at this stage to reproduce Rule 29 (c) of the H.P. Nautor Land Rules, 1968, which reads thus: “(c) The application for review of an order shall not be entertained unless it is made within 90 days from the passing of the order and unless the applicant satisfied the Financial Commissioner or the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within that period.” It is clear from a bare perusal of Rule 29 (c) of the H.P. Nautor Land Rules, 1968 that the review application can be entertained within a period of 90 days or the delay can be condoned on the basis of sufficient grounds shown by the application therein. In the present case though exchange was allowed on 19.4.1982, however, review proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Commissioner on 12.11.1984. This was barred by limitation. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has failed to point out from the records that any application was preferred for condonation of delay. The learned District Judge has correctly interpreted Rule 29 (c) of the H.P. Nautor Land Rules, 1968 as amended from time to time. The proceedings initiated on 12.11.1994 were barred by limitation. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the learned District Judge, Shimla has rightly come to the conclusion that the review could not be allowed being barred by limitation. Since the initial order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was illegal, consequential orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner were also not in accordance with law. Accordingly, there is no merit in this regular second appeal and the same is dismissed. The findings recorded by the first Appellate Court are affirmed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 18, 2009. (cr)