1. The present Regular Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on 31.10.2000 on the following substantial question of law:

1. Whether the Civil suit was maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 C.P.C.

2. Whether the cancellation order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was within his 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment yes competence and in accordance with the rules framed by the Government

3. Whether Civil Court could pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff in view of the fact that Nautor Rules and Scheme framed thereunder are self-contained code and give powers to revenue officer to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record.

3. Respondent No. 1 Tinchu Ram (since deceased) hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" had filed a suit against the appellant herein and also the other respondents hereinafter referred to as "the defendants" seeking declaration that the order of the Deputy Commissioner canceling the grant of nautor was wrong and illegal with a consequential relief of injunction. His case has been that he was allotted two biswas of land for construction of house in village Panti by the State and paid najrana. Thereafter on 2.2.1988, Halqua patwari initiated proceedings against him for encroachment of the land measuring 1 bighas 7 biswas in the same mauja herein after referred to as "the suit land" and ejectment proceedings started before the Assistant Collector, who on 4.3.1983 passed ejectment order which was challenged before the Sub-Divisional Collector by the plaintiff and vide order dated 21.9.1985, he accepted the appeal. The ejectment order was set aside and he further ordered that the grant of the suit land to the plaintiff was under the `HP Grant of Nautor Land to Landless and other Eligible persons Scheme 1975 in as much as total area of his holding was less than 1 acre. Thereafter plaintiff deposited najrana and became absolute owner of the suit land on 10.4.1987. The private defendants filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and vide order dated 18.11.1988, he set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Collector regarding the grant of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. Case of the plaintiff is that he had constructed a house in the year 1972 itself and rest of the land was reclaimed by him and planted an orchard and impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner was wrong and illegal.

4. State in its written statement raised objection with respect to non-service of statutory notice, non-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel, question of locus-standi of the plaintiff to file suit as well as jurisdiction of the Civil Court and in nutshell defended the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner having been exercised under the revisional powers because land in question was required for the construction of the School ground. The other defendants also submitted that play ground for Jathia Devi School was to be constructed over the land in question having been earmarked for the same for which Rs.10,000/- were sanctioned for its development. The learned trial Court framed following issues:-

(i) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land OPP

(ii) Whether order dated 18th November, 1988 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla is illegal and wrong OPP.

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed OPP

(iv) Whether the suit is not maintainable OPD.

(iv) Whether the suit is bad for want of necessary parties OPD.

(vi) Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code OPD.

(vii) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit on account of his acts, conduct and deeds OPD.

(viii) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit OPD.

(ix) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit OPD.

(x) Relief.

5. On completion of the trial, the learned trial Court decided issues No. 1 to 3 against the plaintiff, issue No. 4 became redundant and other issues were not pressed. As such dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

6. In appeal, the learned District Judge reappraised the evidence and the points taken by the plaintiff and took note of Para 9-A of the Scheme which gives power to the Deputy Commissioner to cancel the grant of the land and make such other order in connection therewith as he deems necessary, if it comes to his notice that allotment of any land under the Scheme was made to a person who was not eligible for the allotment or such allotment is wrong on any ground. Meaning thereby that the Deputy Commissioner can only cancel the grant or make such an order if it is shown that the allottee was not entitled or eligible for allotment, or the allotment was wrong on any ground mentioned therein.

7. The plaintiff, in fact, is a resident of District Mandi and Para 5 of the Scheme provides that any person ordinarily residing in any revenue estate of the State of Himachal Pradesh, who is landless, within the meaning of Para-2 (a) of the Scheme, is eligible for grant of nautor land under the Scheme. The plaintiff has testified that he is a resident of the same revenue estate in which the suit land is situated since the year 1972 which fact was corroborated by PW3 Hari Nand, which was not challenged. Thus, the learned first appellate Court rightly concluded that it cannot be said that plaintiff was not ordinarily residing in the revenue estate at the time of grant. Further, as per the Scheme, a grant can be said to be wrong on the ground other than ineligibility of the grantee only if he does not conform to the provisions of the Scheme. The Scheme provides that piece of land cannot be granted to the eligible or entitled persons, on which more than 40 trees of valuable species are grown, which is not the case of the defendants. The only ground taken is that the suit land was earmarked for play ground for which the money was sanctioned, is not a ground which falls within the ambit of the Scheme for its cancellation. Since it is a finding of fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land, he is also an eligible person and the Sub Divisional Collector found him a landless person and even the Deputy Commissioner also did not say anything in impugned order regarding his non-eligibility rather he had offered an alternative site to him for which plaintiff was not ready, is indicative of the factors that the plaintiff did fall under the eligibility criteria.

8. Since the impugned order is wrong and illegal and not in conformity with the Rules as such Civil Court has jurisdiction to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff. Further an application under Section 80 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiff along with the suit being a case of emergent nature, thus, service of notice was dispensed with.

9. No other point urged or pressed.

10. For the afore-stated reasons, the appeal merits dismissal. Ordered accordingly. The substantial questions of law are accordingly answered. There is no error with respect to the findings of fact recorded by the learned First Appellate Court. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

Appeal Dismissed.