IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1269 of 2006 Date of decision: 3.1.2008. Kanshi Ram … Petitioner Versus Smt. Premi Devi & Anr. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Paresh Sharma vice Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 2. Per V.K. Ahuja, J.: This judgment shall dispose of the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner (Revenue) as well as Financial Commissioner. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for grant of Nautor land for construction of a house before the Sub Divisional Officer(Civil), Ghumarwin. His application was rejected on 8.1.1985, but on appeal the case was remanded back to the Sub Divisional Officer(Civil) by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur vide his order dated 17.9.1985. The case was again processed by the Sub 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Divisional Officer(Civil) who rejected the same vide order dated 7.1.1986 with the observation that the allottee is serving in H.R.T.C. and does not fulfill the conditions of allotment of Nautor. An appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner who again remanded the case to the Sub Divisional Officer(Civil) for fresh decision. The Sub Divisional Officer(Civil) processed the case and granted land measuring 0-4 biswas in village Gaher, Tehsil Ghumarwin in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 15.7.1994. An appeal was preferred by respondent No. 1 against this sanction order, which appeal was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 12.1.1995 who set aside the sanction order of the Sub Divisional Officer(Civil). An appeal was preferred before the Commissioner(Revenue) who vide his order dated 8.2.2002 upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. A revision was filed before the Financial Commissioner who dismissed the same vide his order dated 2.5.2006. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the various authorities against him, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Reply to the petition was filed by the respondents. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner shows that he had mentioned therein that the Deputy Commissioner had set aside the order of grant on the following grounds, namely:- 1. Appellant owns 7-10 bighas of land and has got two houses. 2. His income is more than Rs.3000/- per month. 3. The State Government has imposed ban on the allotment of land. 3 It was observed by the Financial Commissioner that the findings of the Deputy Commissioner are factual and the petitioner has not rebutted them in the grounds of revision. A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner (Revenue) also shows that he had reproduced grounds given by the Deputy Commissioner in its impugned order and accordingly, the revision was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no provision that a person who owns 7-10 bighas of land cannot be granted land as Nautor for construction of a house. He also submitted that there is nothing that in case income of a person is more than Rs.3000/- per month, he shall be in-eligible for grant of Nautor land. In regard to the ban imposed, it was submitted that there is no ban for allotment of Nautor land for construction of a house. A perusal of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968, shows that Nautor land can be granted for one or more of the following purposes and the relevant part of the rules is Rule 5© which provides that the land can be allotted for construction of a building for residence. Rule 7 provides as to eligibility for Nautor land. The petitioner can be said to be covered under Rule 7(a), which reads as under: “Such persons who have less than ten bighas of land under self cultivation on 1.1.1974, whether as owners, or as tenants, or as lessees, either individually or collectively, or have an income of less than Rs.2000/- per annum from all sources including lands. Provided that in this category a dependent of one who has laid down his life for the 4 defence of the country will get preference over his counterparts.” Thus, there is no specific bar that a person having monthly income of Rs.3000/- cannot apply for Nautor land but the preference has to be given to landless persons or persons falling below poverty line and therefore, this plea was considered by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) at the time of allotment whether the petitioner is such a person or not who should be granted land for construction of a house. Admittedly, the petitioner owns 7-10 bighas of land, has got two houses and has income more than Rs.7000/- per month since he is working in H.R.T.C. In regard to the house, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the house in question built by the petitioner is away from abadi and, therefore, he needs to build a house in the abadi area. A perusal of the order passed by the Collector dated 12.1.1995 shows that it was found that there are two houses of the petitioner pucca having toilet and one another house two storeyed apart from the cow-shed. A reference was also made that he is serving in H.R.T.C. and his income is more than Rs.3000/- per month. It is not the choice of the petitioner to have house at every place since he must be serving away from his house while serving in H.R.T.C. and insofar as the house of the petitioner is concerned, he is already having two houses and one two storeyed house and the mere fact that these are away from the abadi is not sufficient to hold that he was entitled to the land as Nautor. These Rules of Nautor land have been framed so as to provide land for persons who are not having any house and the petitioner admittedly does not fall in such a scheme and the various authorities have considered these pleas and have come to a definite conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for building of a house 5 since he already owns two houses and as such no infirmity can be found in the impugned orders passed by the various authorities mentioned above and the final order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner does not suffer from any illegality and as such, is liable to be upheld. There is no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge. ( V.K. Ahuja ), January 3, 2008 Judge (BSS) 6