IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.: 217 of 2000 Reserved on: 31.12.2009 Date of decision : 7.01.2010. Roop Lal …Appellant. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For the Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General Deepak Gupta, J. This second appeal is directed against the Judgement and decree of the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, dated 15th January, 2000 passed in Civil Appeal No. 63 of 1992 whereby he has set-aside the judgement and decree passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur on 6th June, 1992 and consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The brief facts, necessary for decision of the case, are that the appellant-plaintiff Roop Lal was granted 5-1 bighas of land as Nautor under Rule 27-B of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968 (here-in-after referred to as the Rules) by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur vide his order 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 dated 19th November, 1974. The said grant was challenged but the appeal was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner. Thereafter, one Shri Rattan Lal filed revision petition in the Court of the Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed. Then a review petition was filed. This review petition was allowed. The learned Financial Commissioner asked the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Ghumarwin, to inspect the spot and find out what is the forest growth on the land. It was reported that there are 129 trees of various classes standing on the sanctioned land. On this ground alone the review petition was allowed and the grant of Nautor land was cancelled. The plaintiff thereafter filed a suit against the State praying for a declaration that the order dated 14th July, 1986 is without jurisdiction and based on wrong facts. Interestingly, Shri Rattan Lal, brother of the plaintiff, on whose revision petition the Financial Commissioner had passed the order was not made a party to the suit. The suit was only contested by the State. The learned trial Court decided the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that it had not been pressed by the State. On merits it held that the order of the Financial Commissioner was without jurisdiction and set-aside the same. The State filed an appeal before the District Judge, Bilaspur, who allowed the same on the ground that under Section 27-B only two bighas of land could be allotted and 3 further more since the area was covered by the forest growth the same could not be granted in Nautor and therefore the order of the Financial Commissioner was legal and valid. Hence, the present appeal. I have heard Shri Rakesh Jaswal, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General for the State. At the outset reference may be made to Rule 27-B(1) of the Rules, which reads as follows:- “Grant of pieces of land which either surrounded or are situated between the land of the farmers. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rule, if piece of Government land not exceeding twenty bighas is surrounded by or is between the fields of farmers which on the one hand causes unnecessary hindrance to agriculture/horticulture and on the other hand serves no useful purpose of the Government, its proprietary rights shall be transferred to the respective farmers, on payment of Rs.200 per bigha as nazrana. The forest growth on such pieces of land should either be sold to the farmer alongwith the land or removed by the Forest Department within a period of six months from the date of sanction of proprietary rights of such land.” A bare perusal of this rule shows that at the relevant time upto 20 bighas of land could be granted as Nautor under this Rule. Therefore, the learned District Judge patently 4 wrong in holding that not more than two bighas of land could be granted. However, coming to the next point, it would be pertinent to mention that the Nautor Rules are a complete code in themselves and provide a complete adjudicatory process for disposal of the matters. Rules 28, 29 and 30 of the Nautor Rules provide for a complete adjudicatory mechanism for filing appeals, reviews and revision petitions. Once such an adjudicatory process is provided in any Act then the decision of the authorities created under the Act cannot be set-aside by going into the merits of the decision. Only if the decision is perverse or if the adjudicatory process is illegal and not in accordance with the Rules then the Civil Court can interfere in the matter. It may be true that the rules do not exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts but by implication the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to go into the merits is partly excluded. The Civil Court cannot reopen the matter on merits. It can only decide whether the order passed by the authority empowered under the rules is in accordance with the law or not. Perverse findings may be set-aside but the Civil Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. The Financial Commissioner had come to the conclusion that there were 129 trees standing on the land in question and hence the same could not be granted as Nautor. According to the plaintiff at the time when the land was 5 granted to him in the year 1974 only a few trees were standing and the remaining trees grew spontaneously thereafter. He alleged that trees were grown after the year 1974. However, other than oral statement of the plaintiff, there is no evidence to support this version of the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not care to examine any expert from the Forest Department who could have indicated what is the age of the trees. It was the plaintiff who had come to Court challenging the order of the Financial Commissioner. Therefore, the burden squarely lay on the plaintiff to show that the order is without jurisdiction or is based on no evidence. The documents produced before the Court only show that there were 129 trees on the spot. It may be true that the Patwari, who counted the trees, in cross-examination has stated that large number of trees are below 16 years but as rightly held by the lower Appellate Court that the Patwari is not an expert and he could not have judged the age of the trees. The age of the trees could only be proved by adducing the evidence of an expert in this regard. In the alternative, Shri Rakesh Jaswal, learned counsel for the appellant, urges that the Nautor Rules do not prohibit the grant of land covered by forest growth as Nautor. Shri Jaswal points out that in Rule 27-B(1) quoted above itself provides that the forest growth should either be sold to the farmer or removed by the Forest Department. As far as this 6 point is concerned, it is for the authorities constituted under the Act to decide whether the forest growth is so much that land should not be granted in Nautor or whether there are only a few trees which can be sold to the farmers or to the forest department. The Civil Court cannot decide such a question. The Financial Commissioner keeping in view the area of land which was only about five bighas and the number of trees which were 129 came to the conclusion that such land should not be granted in Nautor. This decision cannot be said to be perverse and therefore cannot be interfered in civil proceedings. In this view of the matter, I find that the learned lower Appellate Court was right in allowing the appeal, setting aside the decree of the trial Court and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 7th January, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.