HIRA SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 read with Article 111 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has sought direction for quashing orders Annexure-PB dated 22nd July, 1983 and Annexure-PC dated 24th December, 1983, passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) Under the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1965, an application was made by the Petitioner for grant of 71 Bighas 10 Biswas of land, comprised in Khasra No. 438, situate in Village Rukhla, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla. The Deputy Commissioner, of the then Mahasu District, on 10th April, 1967 dismissed the said application. The Petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner on 29th June, 1967. On further appeal to the Financial Commissioner, an order was made on 26th March, 1969 by Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, granting 18 Bighas 15 Biswas of land by way of Nautor On 3rd September, 1969 'Patta' was issued in his favour and he was put in possession of the land. Feeling aggrieved some of the estate right holders preferred a review petition before (be Financial Commissioner. On 31st October, 1972, while allowing the review petition, the grant made in Petitioner's favour was set aside and 'Paita' was cancelled. The ground for allowing the review petition of the objector and setting aside the order of grant was that Petitioner was already in possession of 20 Bighas of land and nautor land, if allowed, would adversely affect the bridle path located in the area granted.

(3.) The Petitioner challenged this order passed by the Financial Commissioner by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 155 of 1972 in this Court. The Division Bench of this Court on 6th December, 1978 allowed the Petitioner's writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Financial Commissioner This decision was rendered after the Court followed the judgment in Percy Chauhan v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.,1979 ILR(HP) 35 holding that if review or revisional power are exercised suo motu by the Financial Commissioner and if in the meanwhile PATTA was granted under Rule 18 of the H.P. Nautor Land Rules, 1968 then that Patta could be set aside only through the process of arbitration, as contemplated by Clause (9) of the PATTA, which is granted in the case of horticultural purposes. Consequently, the Court observed that if in the opinion of the Government any dispute exists between the parties on the question whether the order of grant was proper or not the matter can be referred only to arbitration as per Clause (9) of the PATTA and cannot be challenged in appeal, review or revision.