The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the H.P. Nautor Land Rules, 1968, and the Scheme 1975, specifically analyzing the restrictions on transfer and the grantee's right to alienate the land.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment and decree of the learned District Judge (Forest), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby he affirmed the rendition of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Theog, District Shimla, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs stood dismissed. The plaintiffs standing aggrieved by the concurrently recorded renditions against them by both the learned Courts below, concert through the instant appeal to seek reversal of the concurrently recorded judgments and decrees of both the Courts below.

2. The facts necessary for rendering a decision in the instant appeal are that one Teju was owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 296/264 measuring 3-05 bighas situated in Chak Shilla Gadol Tehsil Theog, District Shimla. He represented the plaintiffs that suit land is free from all encumbrances and he wanted to exchange it with the land of the plaintiffs alongwith water mill at Chak Mahori Tehsil Theog and at that time he wanted the plaintiffs to get the water mill repaired. The plaintiffs accepted his offer and exchange took place, which later on was attested vide mutation No.156. After the said exchange the plaintiffs took possession of the suit land but one Shri Joginder Singh started interfering in the suit land and therefore plaintiffs filed a civil suit against Joginder Singh and Kesru which was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. However, later on Joginder Singh etc. filed an application to the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Theog and thereafter the D.C. Shimla without affording an opportunity of being heard to the plaintiffs or the legal representatives of Teju cancelled the grant of nautor in favour of Teju and ordered for the resumption of the land.

3. The suit of the plaintiffs was resisted by defendant No. 1. The defendant No.1 in its written statement has admitted that the suit land had been granted in Nautor to Teju. It has also been admitted that Teju thereafter exchanged the suit land with the land and water mill of the plaintiffs and that in this behalf a mutation was also passed on 17.1.1980 but it has been pleaded that exchange in question and mutation passed on the basis thereof were wrong and illegal as the suit land was to remain non transferable for a period of 20 years. The contesting defendants supported the orders passed by the revenue officers on the ground that same was very much legal and binding upon the plaintiffs.

4. In the replication filed on behalf of the plaintiffs the averments as contained in the plaint were reiterated and those of the written statement contrary to the plaint were refuted.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:-

(1) Whether order dated 17.1.1997 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla in case No. 2/96 is liable to be set-aside as alleged? OPP.

(2) If Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for?

(3) Relief.

6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs besides the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred therefrom before it by the plaintiffs.

7. Now the plaintiffs/appellants have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, assailing the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court in its impugned judgment and decree. When the appeal came up for admission on 5.6.2009, this Court admitted the appeal on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the judgments of both the Courts below can be sustained which have been passed on the basis of orders of Deputy Commissioner, Shimla dated 17.1.1997 and subsequent order of Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division dated 13.10.1997, which is without jurisdiction?

Substantial question of law

8. The grant of suit land by way of Nautor by the authority c