Decided on July 27,1981

MANGHERU Appellant


V.D.MISRA,C.J. - (1.)THE Full Bench was constituted to reconsider some of the points deckled by a Division Bench of this Court in Bercy Chauhan v. State, ILR (1979) Him Pra 35.
(2.)WE may notice the relevant facts of Civil Writ Petn. No. 219 of 1980. The petitioner was granted land measuring 7 bighas 9 biswas in village Suka Bag, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, vide order dated 23rd August, 1972 of the S.D.O. (Civil), Jogindernagar, District Mandi, under the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968. Thereafter a patta was issued under Rule 18 (c) on 19th June, 1973. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 challenged the grant by way of an appeal before The Special Collector, District Mandi. This appeal was dismissed on 27th June, 1975. Though the Special Collector found that the petitioner was holding land in excess of 20 bighas at the time of the grant of the land, he refused to interfere on the ground that the petitioner had already built a house and a shop on a part of the land granted to him. These respondents went in revision to the Divisional Commissioner who by his order dated 16th Feb., 1977 recommended the revision to the Financial Commissioner. The petitioner also appealed against the order of the Divisional Commissioner to the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner by his order dated 15th July, 1980 revoked the grant to the extent of 4 bighas 9 biswas and allowed the petitioner to retain 2 bighas 9 biswas of land on which he had constructed a shop and a house. He further directed that since the shop had been constructed without authority, the petitioner should pay the prevailing market price of the land. The Financial Commissioner had revoked the grant on the ground that the petitioner had sufficient income and was holding more than 20 bighas of land
The petitioner contends, amongst others, that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 never raised any objections before the grant of the nautor land and issuance of patta and, therefore, had no right to challenge the grant, and that, the Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction or auihority to cancel or modify the grant after the issuance of patta. It is contended that the only alternative for the State after the issuance of patta is to refer the matter for arbitration of the competent authority. The case of Percy Chauhan is made the basis of the contention that after one year of the grant of patta the grant cannot be cancelled by the authorities and the only remedy is to have the matter decided by an Arbitrator.

(3.)WE allowed other lawyers to intervene in view of the fact that similar points were raised by them in other writ petitions.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.