Decided on May 08,1997



M.SRINIVASAN,C.J. - (1.)There is no merit whatever in this writ petition, in which the order of the Financial Commissioner made on 5 -2 -1994 upholding of the cancellation of the allotment made ot the petitioner -Society earlier is challenged. The petitioners applied under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968 for allotment of land, but the Rules will not apply to the land in question. An allotment order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur on 11 -4 -1991. A perusal of the order shows that the Deputy Commissioner made an allotment under the Rules for the allotment of plots in the new Bilaspur township. He has expressly referred to in the order, Rules 11 to 16 and 2 -C and pointed out that the petitioners should abide by the said Rules. But, unfortunately, the Deputy Commissioner has over -looked Rule 17 which is very clear in its terms. The said Rule reads as follows : "Allotment of plot/plots to persons other than oustees, may be made only in respect of such plot/plots as are left unbuilt to the oustees, on the payment of full development charges."
(2.)The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was later cancelled by the Governor -in -Council on 18 -2 -1993. The Deputy Commissioner informed the petitioners of the cancellation of the allotment by communication dated 20 -2 -1993. The cancellation was on the footing that Rule 17 could not be invoked by the Deputy Commissioner, as there were as many as 44 oustees, who had not been allotted lands. The question of allotting land to the non - oustees would arise only after all the oustees have been allotted plots. Rule 17 can be invoked by the parties or the officials only if all the oustees have been allotted land and the land remains un -allotted.
(3.)Aggrieved by the order of cancellation, the petitioners filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 187 of 1993 in this Court challenging the same. By judgment dated 24 -8 -1993, this Court quashed the order of cancellation on the ground that the principles of natural justice had been violated inasmuch as the petitioners were not given an opportunity before the order of cancellation was made. The Court issued a direction to the respondents that if they wanted to take action against the petitioners, they may do so only in accordance with law and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. It was also observed that in case, the decision if any, taken by the respondents is adverse, the petitioners would be at liberty to challenge the said decision on all grounds available in law including the one taken in the said writ petition. Thereafter, notices were issued to the petitioners and the matter was heard by the Financial Commissioner. He passed an order on 5 -2 -1994 upholding the cancellation of the allotment made earlier. The Financial Commissioner has pointed out that under Rule 17, question of allotment of land to non -oustees would arise only if all the oustees had been allotted land. As a fact, the Financial Commissioner has pointed out that 44 oustees remained unallotted at the time of the order made in favour of the petitioners and, therefore, the said order was not valid.

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