LAWS(HPH)-2010-1-155

ROOP LAL Vs. STATE OF H P

Decided On January 07, 2010
ROOP LAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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 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.