IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 11 of 2021 Date of Decision: 23.09.2025. The State of H.P. through Collector Kangra and others .....Appellants Versus Girdhari Lal and Another …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The present appellants have filed this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), assailing the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, Circuit Court at Indora, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 35-N/XIII/2016 titled Girdhari Lal and another vs. State of H.P. and others, whereby the appeal of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 respondents/plaintiffs has been allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.12.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Nurpur in Civil Suit No. 19/2005, titled Girdhari Lal and another Vs. The State of H.P. and others has been set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration to the effect that they are tenants and have become owners of the land comprised in Khata No. 227 min, Khatauni No. 363 min, Khasra Nos. 421, 464, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, plots-15 measuring 01- 63-60 Hms and Khata No. 149, Khatauni No. 242, Khasra No. 948, measuring 0-06-88 Hms, total land measuring 1- 70-48 Hms, situated in Mohal Lagore, Mauza Gahin, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, as per Jamabandi for the year 2002-03, by virtue of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. They sought a declaration that the revenue entry showing the State of Himachal Pradesh as the owner and "Bartandarans" in possession is wrong, null and void, and should be expunged and replaced with an entry showing the plaintiffs as owners in equal shares. The plaintiffs also sought a consequential relief for injunction restraining the defendants from creating any path/road through the suit land or from forcibly dispossessing them. 3 3. The State of Himachal Pradesh was shown as the owner of the suit land in the revenue record and was the defendant in the suit. The plaintiffs filed an application under Section 80(2) of the CPC, seeking permission to sue without serving the mandatory notice, citing urgency. The plaint averred that the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the suit land, which was originally owned by the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat had inducted the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest, Shri Jamitu, as a tenant on payment of annual rent. After Jamitu's death, the plaintiffs, being his sons, succeeded him as tenants and came into cultivating possession, though only the name of one son, plaintiff no. 3 Dharma, was recorded. 4. They claimed to have never relinquished possession and asserted that they should have been declared owners under the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Instead, the defendant State got the land transferred into its name, mutating only Khasra No. 948 in favour of defendants no. 1 & 2, while the entire suit land should have been mutated in their favour. The plaintiffs claimed they were still in cultivating possession, and the land was 'Barani-Ekk-Fassli' (single-crop rain-fed land), though wrongly recorded as 'Charagahan-Billa-Drakhtan' (pasture without trees). They alleged that the defendants, taking advantage of the wrong 4 entries, were threatening to construct a road through the suit land, which would cause irreparable loss. 5. The defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement, raising preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction, maintainability, estoppel, non-joinder of necessary parties, cause of action, valuation, and non- compliance with Section 80 CPC. On merits, they submitted that the suit land was owned and possessed by the State and used as a pasture ('Charagah') by the 'Bartandarans'. They contended that during the settlement operations of 1980-82, the settlement authorities found the land was being used as a pasture and rightly deleted the tenancy of Jamitu, and as no appeal was filed against that order, the revenue entries were correct. 6. They denied the plaintiffs inherited any tenancy rights and stated that the road in question was pre-existing and merely being metalled by the PWD on the existing path previously maintained by the Gram Panchayat, thus not involving any new demarcation. 7. The plaintiffs filed a replication reiterating the plaint's averments. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned lower court has framed the following issues on 05.09.2005:- (1) Whether the plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land by virtue of HP Tenancy and 5 Land Reforms Act and the entry showing the State of HP in the column of ownership and possession is null and void, as alleged? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP (3) Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD (4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (5) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD (6) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD (7) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD (8) Whether the plaint is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction fee? OPD (9) Relief. 8. The plaintiffs examined three witnesses and exhibited documents, while the defendants examined five witnesses. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence, decided issues no. 1 and 2 against the plaintiffs and issues no. 3 to 8 against the defendants, consequently dismissing the suit. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred a first appeal. The arguments raised before the First Appellate Court were that the trial court erred in law and facts in dismissing the suit. It was contended that the lower court failed to apply the correct legal principles and appreciate the pleadings and evidence properly. The appellants argued that they, along with their deceased brother Dharma, were owners in possession of the suit land. Their father, Shri Jamitu, was a 'Gair-Marrussi' tenant of the 6 Gram Panchayat, and after his death, they inherited the tenancy rights and started cultivating the land on payment of 'Galla-Batai'. They became owners upon the commencement of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, and after Dharma's death, they inherited his share. 10. The revenue entry showing the State as owner and the land as 'Charagah' was wrong. The change in entries during the 1980-81 settlement operation was illegal and void as it was made without any inquiry or order from a competent authority. The possession of the appellants throughout the settlement and thereafter was emphasized. It was argued that the Gram Panchayat never challenged their tenancy, which amounted to an admission. The appellants relied on the cross-examination of DW-2, DW-3, and DW-4, who admitted that crops were sown on the suit land and that the appellants had been cultivating it, arguing that these admissions pertained to the entire suit land and not just Khasra No. 948. The First Appellate Court, however, allowed the appeal. 11. Thereafter, the present appellants/defendants preferred this second appeal. 12. The core issue revolved around the validity of the revenue entries and the appellants/defendants’ claim of ownership through tenancy rights under the HP Tenancy 7 and Land Reforms Act. The First Appellate court found that the learned lower courts had erred in their appreciation of the evidence and the application of the law. The factual matrix established that the predecessor-in-interest, Jamitu, was a Gair-Marrussi tenant over the entire suit land, as evidenced by the Jamabandi for 1962-63. Upon his death, the right of tenancy ought to have devolved upon all his male linear descendants, namely his three sons, including the appellants and the deceased plaintiff Dharma, as mandated by Section 45 of the Act. 13. The subsequent revenue records, which showed only Dharma as the tenant for a portion of the land (old Khasra Nos. 120 & 143) and later mutated the entire land in favour of the State, were fundamentally flawed. There was no material on record to justify this selective mutation or the deletion of the other legal heirs, and critically, the respondents failed to produce any order from a competent authority sanctioning this change in entries during the settlement operation. This rendered the alterations in the record pertaining to ownership, possession, and the nature of the land from 'Barani-Abbal' to 'Charagahan-Billa- Drakhtan' illegal and void. 14. Furthermore, the present respondents/plaintiffs successfully rebutted the presumption of truth attached to 8 the revenue entries by leading cogent evidence, which was corroborated by the respondents' own witnesses. The cross-examination of DW-2, DW-3, DW-4, and DW-5 yielded admissions that the appellants were, in fact, in cultivating possession of the suit land, thereby contradicting the revenue entry that described the land as a pasture. Consequently, the present respondents’ claim that they became owners by virtue of the Act was upheld. Regarding the land in Khasra No. 948 (old Khasra No. 435), the revenue record itself already showed the present respondents as owners in possession, leaving no dispute on that parcel. 15. In view of the aforesaid, there arises no question of law much less a substantial question of law for the consideration of the Court. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 23rd September, 2025 (Susheel/T.B.)