Back
1982 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Full Bench, J
Mangheru v. State of H. P. and Others
Civil Writ Petition No. 219 of 1980
For the Appellants/Petitioners: unspecified
For the Respondents: unspecified
Court affirmed that review and revision powers exist beyond the issuance of a patta for nautor land, especially in cases of fraud.
Headnote:(A) Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968 - Review and Revision - The Full Bench reconsidered points regarding the cancellation of land grants under the Nautor rules. It emphasized that powers of review and revision may be exercised within a reasonable time based on the unique circumstances of each case. The court established that objections can be raised by any affected party and clarified that the arbitration clause in the patta does not override review powers. (Paras 20-30)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court addressed the issue of whether the Financial Commissioner could cancel a patta post-issuance, determining that review powers persist regardless of the patta's issuance, particularly in cases involving fraud. (Paras 22-24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contended the Financial Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to cancel the grant after issuing the patta, referencing the necessity of arbitration post-patta issuance as per earlier rulings.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld that the power of review persists beyond the grant of a patta, especially when fraud is involved.
Issues: Key issues included the jurisdiction of authorities post-patta issuance and the validity of the arbitration clause in relation to review powers.
Ratio Decidendi: The bench determined that the exercise of review and revision is warranted within reasonable timeframes specifically influenced by the nature of the land's intended use. The arbitration clause does not negate the powers granted under the rules governing nautor land grants.
Result: The petitions to be placed before a Single Bench for disposal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's direction to address points previously adjudicated. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. the powers of review and revision are necessary to prevent the misuse of land grants. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 3. review powers persist regardless of the issuance of the patta. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. case directed to a single bench for further adjudication. (Para 32) |
1. The Full Bench was constituted to reconsider some of the points decided 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 bigbas 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 R.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.
3. 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 authority 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.
4. We allowed other lawyers to intervene in view of the fact that similar points were raised by them in other writ petitions.
5. The Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules , 1968 define what a nautor land is. R.3 is the definition section. Clause (a) of this rule defines nautor land thus:
"Nautor Land" means the right to utilize, with the sanction of the competent authority waste land owned by the Government outside the towns, outside the reserved and demarcated protected forests, and outside such other areas as may be notified from time to time by the State Government in this behalf for any of the purposes mentioned in R.5 ...... ......"
6. Clause (d) defines "resident" in the following words:
" "Resident" means a bona fide resident of Himachal Pradesh who either holds land in a revenue estate or has seasonal abode and has been living there from generation to generation and includes such bona fide estate artisan, landless agricultural labourer permanently settled in the particular Revenue Estate for not less than 10 years and works there for profit or gain ..... ...."
7. R.5 lays down the purposes for which the nautor land may be granted. R.6 provides for t
