IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RSA No. 449 of 2007 Date of Decision : April 28, 2008. State of HP through Collector & another …Appellants Versus: Kanta Devi …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellants: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. A. G. For the respondent. Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) CMP(M) No. 709/2007 Heard. For the reasons set out in the application, the delay of 31 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. RSA No. 449 of 2007 The present appeal arises out of the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. Land comprising Khata No. 243 min, Khatauni No. 399, Khasra No. 586, measuring 0-30-62 hects. situated in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Mohal Bari, Mouja Daroh, Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’) was allotted to Shri Ganga Ram by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra in the year 1975 on the recommendations of the Gram Panchayat. The allotment is governed under the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Scheme, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’). Shri Ganga Ram complied with the statutory conditions of grant by depositing the necessary charges in September, 1977 and the fact of allotment and his possession was so recorded by the revenue authorities in the revenue record vide mutation No. 399. Shri Ganga Ram continued to enjoy the suit property till the said grant was revised by the S.D.O. (Civil) in terms of order dated 25.7.1981 (Ext.DW-1/H). The appeal against the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.4.1983 (Ext.DW-1/1). Thereafter, the mutation in favour of Shri Ganga Ram was also cancelled vide mutation No. 220, dated 18.3.1996. Shri Ganga Ram/his successors-in-interest assailed the said order by way of Civil Suit No. 100/96, which was decreed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. vide judgment and decree dated 14.1.2005. The trial Court found that the cancellation order was passed by the SDO (Civil) who was not empowered under the 3 provisions of the Scheme as under Clause 13(4) of the Scheme, it was only the Commissioner who was authorized to have heard the appeal and reviewed the order of allotment. The relief portion of the civil suit is as under:- “On the premises aforesaid, the suit of the plaintiffs succeeds and is decreed accordingly. A declaration is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants to the effect that the cancellation order passed by defendant No.2 dated 25.7.1981 is without jurisdiction, and as such, is null and void and not sustainable under law and further mutation No. 220 dated 18.3.1996 passed in pursuance of the said order is also declared null & void and not binding on the plaintiffs with respect to the suit land. A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction is also passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, restraining them from interfering in the possession or forcibly evicting the plaintiffs from the suit land comprised in khata No. 243 min, khatauni No. 399, khasra No. 586, measuring 0-30-62 hects. situated in Mohal Bari, Mouja Daroh, Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. till the time the allotment of the suit land is not legally cancelled and till the time the plaintiffs are evicted from the suit land in due process of law. However, owing to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, both the parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.” The findings recorded by the trial Court were upheld vide judgment and decree dated 13.4.2007 passed in Civil 4 Appeal No. 54-D/05 by the Addl. District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala. I have examined the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. Shri Ganga Ram/his predecessors-in-interest were not afforded adequate opportunity of hearing and therefore, principles of natural justice stood violated . In my view, the provisions of the Scheme are abundantly clear and the order cancelling the allotment (Ext.DW- 1/H) is without jurisdiction and, therefore, nullity. The cancellation can take place only in accordance with the provisions of the law. The person canceling the grant was not authorized to do so. It is not that the officer was delegated with such powers. Therefore, in my view, the impugned judgment is neither erroneous nor perverse and no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The State is bound by the decree and shall take action as advised in accordance with law. CMP No. 791/2007 In view of the dismissal of the main matter, this application is also dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. April 28, 2008. (rana)