Capt. (Retd.) Liaq Ram Chauhan vs State of H.P. and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—By means of this petition, the Petitioner has prayed that the order dated 28.3.2007 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) be quashed and ''Nautor'' sanctioned in his favour vide order dated 5.2.1971 be granted.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner is an Ex-serviceman and served as an officer in Indian Army from 1965 to 1970. When he was serving in the Army, he applied for 25 bighas of Nautor and in the year 1971 order dated 5.2.1971 was passed whereby land measuring 11-12 bighas comprising in khasra No. 300/1 in village Khangta was sanctioned in his favour. However, when the process of grant of Nautor was under consideration, the Forest Department had raised objection that there is heavy forest growth on the land. Despite this objection the Revenue Assistant, Rohru and Jubbal granted the land as Nautor to the Petitioner. Appeal was filed by the Divisional Forest Officer to the Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu who came to the conclusion that the objection raised by the forest department is correct, since there is heavy tree growth in the land, but further went on to hold that since no other land was available to be granted, he had no other option but to uphold the grant.

The Divisional Forest Officer thereafter filed a Revision Petition in the Court of Financial Commissioner which Revision Petition was allowed by the Financial Commissioner in the year 1980. However, while allowing the Revision Petition, the Financial Commissioner remanded the case to the SDO (Civil) Rohru with a direction that some other land of reasonable area which was free of trees may be granted to Respondent. Thereafter it appears that vide order dated 19.3.1982 another area of 11 bighas 10 biswas was granted in favour of the Petitioner as Nautor. Against this order, residents of the area filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the revision petition filed by the villagers on 21.1.1983. Thereafter the Estate Right Holders filed a Review Petition and this Review Petition was allowed on 31.3.1983. According to the Petitioner, this order was passed behind his back. Thereafter on 26.12.1991 the SDO (Civil), Rohru passed a detailed order rejecting the Nautor application filed by the Petitioner. He found that the Petitioner was owner of 46-4 bighas of land and had also been granted 10-9 bighas of land as Nautor u/s 27-B. According to the Petitioner, he was unaware of the order passed by the SDO (Civil) as far back as on 26.12.1991 and he kept inquiring about his case and was told that it was pending. Finally he filed a miscellaneous application on 8.4.2005 praying that the order be set aside and Nautor be granted to him. This application was rejected by the Financial Commissioner giving rise to the present petition.

On the last date of hearing, I directed the Petitioner to file an affidavit as to whether he was granted 10-9 bighas of land as Nautor in Chak Bateori, Tehsil Chopal. He has filed an affidavit and has clearly admitted that he was granted this land as Nautor. It is also apparent from the record that in between during this period the Petitioner was owning 44 bighas of land. The explanation of the Petitioner is that though this land was shown in his name, but it was purchased by his brother in his name. It was actually purchased by his elder brother and after the death of his elder brother, the land has been transferred to the children of the elder brother and now this land is in their name.

Without going into this question in detail, it is apparent that the Petitioner has already been granted Nautor though under Rule 27-B in the same area. He is not a landless person. At most of the relevant time 44 bighas of land was shown in his ownership and it was only after this land was transferred to his nephews that he filed the application before the Financial Commissioner almost 16 years after the SDO (Civil) has passed the order. The application was not only highly belated, but it appears that this application was filed after the land which was initially owned by him was transferred in the name of his nephews.

Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the Petitioner has been granted land under Rule 27-B, I do not feel that he is entitled to grant of any other Nautor. In fact, it is only because the Petitioner in his affidavit has clearly admitted that he had inadvertently not mentioned the fact of his having Nautor under Rule 27-B and has thrown himself at the mercy of this Court that I am not taking any further action against the Petitioner. The petition is accordingly rejected. No costs.