- (1.)THIS is an application Under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging that the respondents have committed a civil contempt; by disobeying the orders passed by this Court.
(2.)THE petitioner, who is a resident of village Mandroli, Sub-Tehsil Koth-khai, District Simla, applied for the grant of 10 bighas 15 biswas of nautor land for horticulture purposes under the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968. The Revenue Assistant Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Theog, by his order dated 27th Sept. 1972 granted the nautor land in terms of Rule 16. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rupees 537-50 paise as nazrana for the land and Rs. 7,745-10 paise on account of the price of the trees standing on the said land. When the petitioner approached the Head Vernacular Clerk of the Deputy Commissioner at Simla for depositing the amount, an objection was raised that the petitioner did not comply with the requirement of living in the estate concerned from generation to generation. Before any action could be taken, a fire broke out in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner's file was destroyed in the fire. After the file was reconstructed the Deputy Commissioner directed the Revenue Assistant, Theog, to review the matter on the question whether the petitioner was a resident of the estate concerned from generation to generation since this was the definition of the word 'resident' in the rules. The petitioner moved this Court by filing Civil Writ Petn. No. 183 of 1974, praying for a writ of mandamus for directions to the Deputy Commissioner, Simla for the grant of the patta. A learned single Judge of this Court by a judgment dated May 30, 1975 came to the conclusion that: "there can be no dispute that the petitioner fulfils the requirements of a bona fide Himachali1' but since the Nautor Rules did not have any statutory force the petition was not sustainable. On appeal (L. P. A. No. 44 of 1975) a Division Bench of this Court by a judgment D/- 8-12-1978 allowed the appeal on the ground that the Nautor Rules had the force of law and that the definition of the word 'resident' requiring a person to have been living from generation to generation offends Article 14 of the Constitution and has to be struck down. The operative part of the judgment is in the following terms : In view of this, we allow this appeal and remand the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner, Simla, to consider the question whether the appellant is covered by the definition of 'resident' or not in the light of the observations made by us in the common judgment.
(3.)INSTEAD of complying with the directions the then Deputy Commissioner, Simla, directed the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Theog, to decide the matter afresh in view of the judgment of this Court. The petitioner avers that he was made to run between Simla and Theog without his matter being decided according to the directions given by this Court. Ultimately the petitioner was forced to file another Civil Writ Petn, No. 266 of 1979. On Nov. 7, 1979 the Advocate General gave an assurance to the Court that the matter would be decided expeditiously. The order reads thus: It is stated by the learned Advocate General that the matter would be decided as expeditiously as possible. In view of this, the writ petition is not pressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. As such, the writ petition is rendered infructuous and is dismissed.
;