NARAINU Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MAHASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20th December, 1967 by which the respondent cancelled the grant made in the favour of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner applied for a grant of Nau tor for horticulture purpose in village Ruhalti, pargana Karoli, Tehsil Kasumpti. This land measured 16 bighas and bore Khasra Nos.651, 355/1 in Hadbast No. 192. After following the procedure laid down in the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Rules 1954, the petition was sanctioned the said land vide order dated 17th October, 1961, by the respondent on payment of Rs. 160.00 as price of the land and Rs. 608.64 as compensation for the trees standing on the said land. The respondent had taken about two years before the land was sanctioned. The Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh executed a Patta on 21st February. 1962, in favour of the petitioner according to the Nautor Rules and thereafter a mutation of transfer of ownership No. 121 dated 26th March, 1962, was entered and attested in favour of the petitioner. Some interested persons of Ruhalti village filed a review petition before the respondent and by his order dated 5th November, 1963, rerred the matter of grant of Nautor to the Arbitrator in accordance with condition No. 9 of the Patta. In pursuance of this order, the Judicial Secretary to Himachal Pradesh started acting as an Arbitrator. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Court of the then Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, Simla, against the order of the respondent referring the matter to the arbitration of the Judicial Secretary. This petition was accepted and order of the respondent was set aside The respondent again proceeded in the matter and reviewed the order of grant made in favour of the petitioner and cancelled the said grant vide his order dated 20th December, 1967.

(3.) The petitioner further alleges that the said order was passed at the back of the petitioner, without notice to him and he came to know about it on 12th February, 1968, when he applied fur a certified copy which was not granted to him till today. He also alleged that he had spent about Rs 20,000.00 on this land by constructing a house and planting about 400 plants of apples and other fruit trees which are about three years' old. He was given a loan of Rs. 1800.00 for improvement of this orchard by the State Government of Himachal Pradesh. The respondent in his return practically accepted the major allegations made by the petitioner resulting in the order of the then Judicial Commissioner. It may be noted here that though the allegation contained in para3ofthe petition alleging "a mutation of transfer of ownership' being entered and attested in favour of the petitioner has been admitted without any reservation, yet to the allegation of the petitioner contained in para 4 of the petition that he became "full and absolute owner" of the land after the execution of the Patta by the Lt. Governor, the respondent denied that the petitioner became the absolute owner of the land. Respondent's reply to petitioner's challenge of the validity of the impugned order may be reproduced as under :-