2025:HHC:34405 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 87 of 2016 Date of decision: 10.10.2025. Purshotam ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Gautam Sood, DAG, for respondent No.1. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral): Heard. 2. This Regular Second has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.5.2014, passed by the learned District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 7-NL/13 of 2013, whereby the decree dated 16.2.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.2 Nalagarh in Civil Suit No. 155/1 of 2009/07, has been affirmed. 3. The appellant herein was one of the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 155/1 of 2009/07. The suit was filed for declaration that the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- plaintiffs were owner in possession of the suit land having acquired proprietary rights thereon under the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The contrary revenue entries were also sought to be declared wrong, illegal and null & void. In alternative, a prayer was made to declare the plaintiffs as tenants over the suit land, in case their title was not proved. As a consequential relief, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought. 4. The suit was filed on the premise that one Santu son of Sh. Pohlo was predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and proforma-defendants. He was put in possession of the suit land as tenant by the then Gram Panchayat on payment of Chakota (rent). After coming into force of the H.P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, the land vested in Gram Panchayat was transferred in the name of State of Himachal Pradesh. Santu, in pursuance to the proceedings held under the H.P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act had been declared tenant on 24 kanals 1 marla of land. The plaintiffs further claimed that their tenancy continued at the time of coming -3- into force of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and as such, they became absolute owner in possession of the said land, as the conferment of proprietary rights was automatic. 5. The respondent State had contested the suit by filing written statement. The possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land measuring 24 kanals 1 marla was alleged to be unauthorized. It was submitted that as per the order of Collector, Nalagarh, the lease of 24 kanals 1 marla was regularized in favour of Hans Raj and Purshotam upto 1977-78 only. The said persons had deposited the Chakota upto 1977-78 only. Thereafter, neither chakota was deposited nor Hans Raj and Purshotam applied for extension of lease. 6. Learned trial Court had framed the following issues:- “1. Whether predecessor in interest of plaintiffs namely Santu was tenant over the suit land and after coming into force the H.P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, he became owner in possession of the same, as alleged? OPP 2. In case issue NO.1, is not proved, whether the plaintiffs are tenants over the suit land on payment of rent? OPP -4- 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the consequential relief of permanent injunction prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own acts, conducts and acquiescences OPD. 7. Whether this court has no jurisdiction ?OPD 8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction as alleged ? OPD 9. Whether the suit is bad for want of legal notice? OPD 10. Relief”. 7. Issues No. 1, 4 to 9 were answered in negative whereas, issue No. 2 was answered in affirmative and issue No.3 was partly answered in affirmative. The suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed. They were declared as tenants over the land measuring 24 kanals 1 marla, situated in Village Gaguwal, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. The respondent State was also restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land except due course of law. -5- 8. The first appeal filed under Section 96 of the CPC was filed by the plaintiffs, which also stands dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree. Hence this appeal. 9. The instant appeal was admitted on 10.3.2016 on following substantial question of law:- “Whether the amendment of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, Sub Section 9 of the Section 104 dated 14.4.1988 is retrospective?” 10. The substantial question of law, as framed above, has to be decided against the plaintiffs/appellant for the reason that the amendment carried in the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 by virtue of amended Act No.6 of 1988 w.e.f. 14.4.1988 has already been held to have retrospective operation, by this Court in State of H.P. vs. Chander Dev & others, Latest HLJ (2007) HP-728. 11. By the aforesaid amendment in 1972 Act, the operation of the said Act had been made inapplicable to the land owned by or vesting in the State of H.P. Thus, the proprietary rights could not be claimed by the plaintiffs over the land admittedly belonging to the State of H.P. -6- They were entitled to the tenancy rights which has already been granted to them by both the Courts. 12. In result, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Record be sent back forthwith. (Satyen Vaidya) 10th October, 2025. Judge (kck)