JUDGMENT :

Kuldip Singh, J.

This judgement shall dispose of RSA No. 379 of 2000 and RSA No. 179 of 2001, as common question of law is involved in both the appeals. Both the appeals have been directed against common judgement and decree dated 5.5.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1992 and Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1991 affirming the judgement and decree dated 30.9.1991 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 58/1 of 1987/85. The facts in this judgement are given from RSA No. 379 of 2000.

2. The facts in brief are that respondent No.1 had filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction that he is owner in possession of land measuring 6-17 bighas, comprised in khasra No. 29/17, village Panyali, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. He had sought declaration that order of Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur dated 25.8.1974 and order of Divisional Commissioner dated 14.9.1984 are illegal and without jurisdiction. He had prayed declaration that if order of Deputy Commissioner and Divisional Commissioner are held to be legal, in that event, he cannot be ejected from the suit land without payment of compensation of house, which he has constructed over the suit land. A prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction has also been made. In the alternative, he has prayed for regularisation of his possession.

3. The further case of respondent No. 1 is that he had applied for Nautor. The application for Nautor was sent to Forest Department, Revenue Department and for the report of Gram Panchayat Panyali. The application of respondent No.1 was processed by different agencies and the case came up before Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ghumarwin and only Forest Department had raised objection about the grant of Nautor. The land was granted to him on 6.12.1970 and patta was executed on 24.5.1971. The mutation was attested and possession of land was handed over to him.

4. He is settled in village Panyali since the year 1963. He has improved the Nautor land after spending huge amount. It has been alleged that respondents No. 2 to 4 had filed an appeal against the grant of Nautor land before the Deputy Commissioner, which was allowed and the grant made in favour of respondent No. 1 was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner. He filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, which was dismissed on 14.9.1984. In these circumstances, the suit was filed.

5. The appellant and respondents No. 2 to 4 contested the suit. The appellant filed written statement. The respondents No. 2 to 4 filed joint written statement. The appellant took preliminary objections of want of notice under Section 80 CPC, limitation, valuation, jurisdiction, estoppel, lack of cause of action and locus-standi as well as the non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it has been alleged that Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ghumarwin did not follow due procedure of law before granting Nautor, the appellant has supported the orders of Deputy Commissioner and Divisional Commissioner. The other claim of respondent No. 1 was denied.

6. In the written statement of respondents No. 2 to 4 more or less same preliminary objections were taken. On merits, it was submitted that respondent No.1 had obtained Nautor by misrepresenting the facts. He is resident of village Bari Miyan and not resident of village Panyali. It was admitted that grand-father of respondent No. 1 was resident of village Chhandoh, which is 2 kilometers away from village Panyali. They contested the remaining claim of respondent No. 1. The learned Senior Sub Judge held that Deputy Commissioner in order Ex. P-3 and Divisional Commissioner in order Ex. P-7 have not gone into the question whether respondent No. 1 is resident of 'estate'. These authorities have rejected the grant on the ground that respondent No.1 is not resident of village Panyali. The learned Senior Sub Judge has held that as per Rule 7 of H.P. Nautor Land Rules, 1968 (for short, the Rules), the el