STATE OF H.P. Vs. ARJUN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Himachal Pradesh was defendant in case No. 297 -1 of 1992/88, which was decreed on 30.6.1992 in favour of respondent, who was plaintiff in that suit. The learned District Judge, Bilaspur dismissed Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1992 on 3.12.1997, hence the present second appeal by the State.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respondent filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 43/55, Khasra No. 679/666, measuring 3 -16 Bighas, village Bhagatpur, Pargana Bachhretu, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur vide jamabandi 1985 -86. The respondent in the suit had assailed the order dated 18.2.1988 of Financial Commissioner being without jurisdiction. The case of the respondent is that he was granted nautor land vide file No. 165/1965 by Sub Divisional Officer (C) Ghumarwin after following due procedure on 20.6.1973. The respondent had deposited Nazrana and price of the trees, thereafter Patta was issued by the Collector, Bilaspur to the respondent. The possession was delivered to respondent and mutation No. 349 was also attested in his favour. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue and Appeals) on 10.2.1988 without notice to the respondent rejected the grant made in favour of the respondent.

(3.) I have heard Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Diwan Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that two courts below have erred in decreeing the suit of the respondent. The material on record has been misconstrued and misinterpreted, there were trees on the allotted land prior to allotment and the allotment of the suit land was made wrongly in favour of respondent under H.P. Grant of Nautor Rules, 1968 (for short, the Rules). The Financial Commissioner had rightly cancelled the allotment of suit land in favour of the respondent under Rule 30. The learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the procedure prescribed under Rule 30 was not allowed before cancellation of the allotment. The respondent was concerned unheard. The two courts below have concurrently held that no notice before cancellation of allotment was given to the respondent. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has supported the impugned judgment.