Sewak Ram and Others vs State of H.P. and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—This petition was initially filed by Smt. Thakur Mani in which she claimed that in the year 1975, she had applied for the grant of Nautor land but no action on her application was taken. By means of this very petition, she also claimed that a part of the land which she had prayed be allotted to her was not granted to her but was granted to the Respondent No. 5 who was an employee of the Revenue Department and was working as a Patwari at the relevant time. She submitted that the Respondent No. 5 had manipulated the entries in his favour and according to her, since the Respondent No. 5 was an employee and his income was more than ` 2000/- per annum, he was ineligible for grant of Nautor land under Rule 7(a) of the H.P Nautor Land Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules'').

Unfortunately, Smt. Thakur Mani died during the pendency of the petition. Now her legal heirs have been brought on record. Therefore, as of now, it is the eligibility of the legal heirs which has to be seen for grant of Nautor land and the question whether Smt. Thakur Mani was entitled or not entitled to grant of Nautor has become irrelevant because of her death.

It is contended by Sh. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate that the legal heirs are entitled to continue the proceedings on behalf of Smt. Thakur Mani and the eligibility has to be seen as in the year 1976 when she had applied for grant of Nautor.

I am unable to accept such contention. Admittedly, in the year 1976 itself, a ban imposed on grant of Nautor land which ban was lifted in the year 1980. The Petitioner did not take any steps in the matter till she issued a notice in the year 2000. Thereafter, also she kept silent 3 and it was only in the year 2006, i.e., 30 years after she had applied for Nautor that she approached this Court. Other than her statement that she is an illiterate and an old woman, there is no explanation for the gross delay in filing the petition. Her legal heirs now cannot claim that the criteria as it existed in the year 1976 be applied. Smt. Thakur Mani was never granted Nautor land and, therefore, no right subsists in favour of the legal heirs and if they had any right, it shall be their individual right. In case the legal heirs of Smt. Thakur Mani apply for grant of Nautor, their application shall be considered strictly in accordance with the existing rules.

The second relief claimed by Smt. Thakur Mani was that the Respondent No. 5 had wrongly been granted Nautor and some of the land which has been granted to him is the same which she had applied for. Since Smt. Thakur Mani is no longer alive, this exercise is also become meaningless. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the records of both Smt. Thakur Mani and the Respondent No. 5 with regard to the grant of Nautor are missing. The Respondents are directed to ensure that action is taken against the concerned officials who were Incharge of the files and action so taken shall be conveyed to this Court.

As far as the land granted in favour of the Respondent No. 5 is concerned, from the facts on record, it appears that Nautor was granted is his favour in the year 1993. The petition was filed in the year 2006. In these 13 years, the Respondent No. 5 will obviously have developed such land and spent huge time and money on the said land and, therefore, after 13 years, his grant cannot be set aside.

In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed. However, the Respondent No. 1 is directed to file an affidavit within four months from today stating what action has been taken against the erring officials due to whose negligence the files have been lost. For this purpose only, the matter be listed in Court on 26.4.2011.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.