JAI CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Rule 30 of the H.P. Nautor Rules, 1968 against an order dated 16.12.1995 passed by the Commissioner Shimla Division in appeal No. 55/95 whereby he had dismissed an appeal filed before him against an order of the Deputy Commisisoner, Shimla dated 7.3.1995 who had vide the said order rejected an application for grant of nautor filed by the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for grant of nautor on 26.4.1976 comprised in Khasra No. 324/1 measuring 12 -3 Bighas situated in Village Bharoli, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla. The same was rejected by the Deputy Commisisoner on 25.3.1977, observing that the land applied for does not fall within the definition of land. An appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner, who rejected the same on 22.8.1985. A revision petition was filed by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner (Rev & Appeal) H.P. who, vi e an order dated 27.5.1988 held that:

(3.) The amendment does not mention any saving clause about the dealing disposal of cases pending under this rule in appeal, revision etc. and it is clear from the reading of amendment that it is prospective in nature and has no retrospective effect. I do not feel that the, case of the petitioner was covered under the provision of old Rule 27 (B) and the Deputy Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the case. He has not passed a speaking order. The learned Divisional Commissioner has also erred in not providing an opportunity of being heard to the present petitioner. Accordingly, I set aside both the orders i.e. order dated 25.3.1977 of the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla and dated 22.8.1985 of the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division and remand the case to the Divisional Commissioner to decide the case in the light of my above observations. The matter was heard by the Divisional Commissioner Shimla who, vide an order dated 23.3.1990 held that the case should have been remanded to the Deputy Commissioner and that it would be unfair for him to sit as a trial Court and pass any order in the matter. He, in turn, remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla to decide the same within three months. The Deputy Commissioner, Shimla rejected the application once again vide order dated 7.3.1995 holding that the petitioner was not holding any land in his name adjacent to and on applied for at the time of application. The petitioner assailed this order before the Comsnissioner, Shimla Division in appeal No. 55/95 who rejected the same on 16.12.1995 holding that for the reasons pointed out by the Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 7.3.1995, Shri Jai Chand, petitioner, is not eligible for nautor. It is against this order dated 16.12.1995 that the present revision petition has been preferred.