2025:HHC:31972 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.370 of 2016 Decided on: 16.09.2025 State of H.P. & another ...Appellants Versus Sardar Singh & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? . For the appellants: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Kanwar Bhupinder Singh, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge ( Oral ) Heard. 2. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by appellants/ defendants against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2015, passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Shimla in Civil Appeal No.26-R/13 of 2012, whereby the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2012, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jubbal, in Civil Suit No.07/1 of 2010 has been reversed and set aside. 3. Respondent No.1 herein / plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 7/1 of 2010 before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jubbal 2 2025:HHC:31972 for declaration that the plaintiff along with proforma defendants (respondents No.2 to 5 herein) were owners-in-possession of the land comprised in Khata No.86 min, Khatauni No.259, Khasra Nos.134, 159, 173, 174, 999 kitas 5 measuring 00-53-90 hectares situated in Chak Up Mohal Bauti, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, H.P. (for short, “the suit land”). The title to the suit land was claimed on the premise that the suit land had been granted by the State Government to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and proforma defendants under the “Nautor Rules”. It was also alleged that the defendants had wrongly initiated proceedings under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act in respect of the suit land against proforma defendant No.4 and the consequent eviction order passed was also null and void. As a consequential relief, a decree to restrain the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was also claimed. 4. It was averred in the plaint that the father of plaintiff late Shri Lajja Ram had applied for grant of land under the Nautor Rules in the year 1969-1970. After the adoption of due procedure under the said Rules, the Revenue Assistant, Rohru, had sanctioned the grant of suit land in favour of Shri Lajja Ram on 11.11.1970 and 29.03.1971, for which fees of Rs.115/- and Rs.542.50 had been deposited in the account of the State 3 2025:HHC:31972 Government. As per the plaintiff, since the order of grant had become final, the possession was handed over to Shri Lajja Ram who had raised apple orchard on the suit land besides construction of two houses thereon. It was the case of the plaintiff that under the garb of eviction order passed under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, peaceful possession of the plaintiff was being disturbed. The plaintiff further claimed that he had made efforts to get the revenue entries updated but did not succeed and thereafter issued notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the defendants. Having failed to get redressal of his grievances, the suit was filed. 5. The defendants filed their written statement. Various objections viz maintainability of the suit, lack of jurisdiction of the civil Court, limitation, locus standi, cause of action, non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties and valuation etc. were raised. 6. On merits, it was admitted that Shri Lajja Ram had preferred more than one application for grant of different portions of land as Nautor. Rest of the claim was denied. It was submitted that the suit land was never sanctioned in favour of father of the plaintiff as he was not found eligible for the grant. The defendants further submitted that since the suit land had not been sanctioned in favour of Shri Lajja Ram hence, the “Patta” was not issued in 4 2025:HHC:31972 his favour. The suit land was alleged to have been encroached by Lajja Ram. 7. The defendants further contended that Shri Lajja Ram had died in the year 2004 and till then he had made no effort to get the entries incorporated in the revenue records. 8. The action taken against proforma defendant No.4 under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act by Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Jubbal was sought to be defended on the ground that the defendant-State was the owner of the suit land and the possession of Shri Lajja Ram was that of an encroacher. 9. Learned trial Court framed the following issues: “1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that he along with proforma defendants No.3 to6 is owner in possession of the suit land as the same was sanctioned to late Sh.Lajja Ram, father of plaintiff by Revenue assistant, Rohru on 11.11.1970 and 29.03.1971 as prayed for? OPP. 2) Whether order dated 18.09.2009 passed by assistant Collector 1" Grade Jubbal under Section 163 of H.P. Land Revenue act is null and void and illegal, if so, its effect ?OPP. 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed? OPP. 4) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?OPD. 5 2025:HHC:31972 5) Whether this court has no the present suit as alleged?OPD. jurisdiction to trythe present suit as alleged? OPD 6) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD. 7) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD. 8) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. 9) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?OPD. 10. Whether suit has not been properly valued, if 50, its effect?OPD. 11) Relief.” 10. All the issues were answered in negative and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 11. The plaintiff assailed the judgment passed by learned trial Court by filing appeal under Section 96 of the Code. Learned Additional District Judge-I, Shimla has allowed the appeal of the plaintiff vide impugned judgment and decree and the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed in terms of prayers made in the plaint. Hence, this appeal. 12. The appeal was admitted for hearing on following substantial questions of law vide order dated 18.10.2016: “1. Whether findings arrived by learned Addl. District Judge are against law and facts on record and contrary to the provisions to the H.P. Land Revenue Act? 6 2025:HHC:31972 2. Whether learned Addl. District Judge has misused misconducted provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act? 3. Whether civil Court has jurisdiction to maintain and try the suit arising out of proceedings under Section 163 of H.P. Land Revenue Act where special Act debars the jurisdiction and is complete code in itself? 4. Whether findings given by Court below are against the provisions of the Limitation Act? 5. Whether decree as passed by learned first Appellate Court is not sustainable and same is result of mis-appreciation of evidence and misinterpretation of pleadings as well as law which resulted into miscarriage of justice?” 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 14. Learned trial Court had proceeded to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff primarily on the ground of insufficiency of evidence to prove the completion of procedural formalities under the Nautor Rules. Learned trial court had taken note of detailed procedure required to be followed under the said Rules and then concluded that the plaintiff had failed to prove the grant of sanction in his favour in accordance with law. 15. At this stage, it will be apt to notice that the plaintiff had proved on record the extract from the Nautor register to establish the factum of grant of the suit land in favour of Shri Lajja 7 2025:HHC:31972 Ram and payment of ‘Nazrana’ in lieu thereof. The documents have been exhibited as Ext. PW-1/E and Ext. PW1/F. The plaintiff had summoned the original of the Nautor register. PW-4 had produced the original Nautor register in the Court and had verified the contents of Ext. PW-1/E and Ext. PW-1/F on the basis of entries in the original register. 16. Ext. PW-1/E evidenced the factum of grant of 2-6 bighas of land comprised in Khasra No.892/1 in favour of Shri Lajja Ram against the payment of Rs.115/- as ‘Nazrana’ on 11.11.1970. Further, document Ext. PW-1/F revealed the factum of grant of 10-17 bighas of land in Chak Thana in favour of Lajja Ram against the payment of Rs.542.50 as ‘Nazrana’ for the land and Rs.72/- as price of trees. 17. Though, PW-4 was cross-examined by the defendants, but nothing could be brought on record to suggest that the record produced by him was not genuine. 18. Noticeably, the defendants have not produced any other record despite the fact that they are custodians of the record. This aspect gains importance in the backdrop of defence raised by the defendants that no sanction of Nautor land had been accorded in favour of the plaintiff. 8 2025:HHC:31972 19. The defendants produced the Tehsildar and Patwari of the area as their witnesses who also made only oral depositions without making any reference to the record. 20. The fact that Shri Lajja Ram possessed the suit land during his life time has not been denied by the defendants. As per the averments made in the written statement, Shri Lajja Ram had unauthorizedly occupied the suit land. The defendants had also initiated proceedings under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act which also goes to show that the possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendants as also their predecessor- in-interest on the suit land was not disputed by the defendants. The defendants had examined the Patwari of the area as DW-2, who had also admitted the existence of apple orchard and houses of plaintiff on the suit land. 21. Thus, it had been established on record that the possession of the suit land was with the plaintiff and other successors of Shri Lajja Ram from the time of their predecessor- in-interest. It has also been established that orders of grant of suit land under Nautor Rules were passed by the Revenue Assistant, Rohru, in favour of Shri Lajja Ram way back on 11.11.1970 and 29.03.1971. 22. In view of the aforesaid established and proved facts, the only thing that was an impediment in the lawful title of the 9 2025:HHC:31972 plaintiff and proforma defendants was the non-issuance of ‘Patta’. Once, the ‘Patta’ had not been issued, the consequent mutation also could not have been attested. In such circumstances, the question arises whether mere non-issuance of ‘Patta’ would take away the rights of the plaintiff and proforma defendants in the suit land. 23. The first appellate Court has held the above question in favour of the plaintiff. The said Court proceeded on the premise that once the possession coupled with the factum of grant of suit land was proved on record, the non-issuance of ‘Patta’ would not be material as the said act was not in the hand of plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest Shri Lajja Ram. 24. Learned first appellate Court has placed reliance on the judgment dated 21.3.2014 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.215 of 2002, titled Smt. Rose Bobi and others vs. State of H.P. and others 2014(2) Shimla Law Cases (2) 569. 25. The view taken by learned first appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse or illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case, rather it is a possible view as is borne from the facts proved on record. The fact that the orders granting the suit land in favour of plaintiff under the Nautor Rules had been issued by the Revenue Assistant, Rohru is sufficient to draw an 10 2025:HHC:31972 inference that all prior formalities under the Nautor Rules were duly completed. It is not the case of the defendants that the Revenue Assistant, Rohru was not competent to issue the grant order. Additionally, the fact that Shri Lajja Ram had occupied the suit land is also sufficient to infer with the possession was delivered to him in pursuance of the grant made by the Revenue Assistant, Rohru. The defendants had not initiated any proceedings against Shri Lajja Ram by declaring him unauthorized occupant during his life time. That being so, the existence of grant order passed in favour of Lajja Ram coupled with the delivery of possession is sufficient to hold that the grant was made in favour of Shri Lajja Ram in terms of Nautor Rules and merely because the Patta was not issued, the rights that came to be vested in Shri Lajja Ram in the suit land cannot be said to have been diluted. The issuance of ‘Patta’ was a ministerial act in the hands of defendants and since the defendants have failed to produce any convincing evidence to discredit the version of the plaintiff, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. 26. In Rose Bobi (supra) the facts were almost identical. The factum of grant of possession of the plaintiff in that case was duly established. What was lacking was the issuance of ‘Patta’ as in the instant case also. The Coordinate Bench of this Court had 11 2025:HHC:31972 taken a similar view that mere absence of ‘Patta’ would not affect the rights which otherwise had accrued to the plaintiff in that case under the Nautor Rules. 27. In result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Substantial questions of law as noticed above are decided against the defendants. Judgment and decree dated 31.08.2015, passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Shimla in Civil Appeal No.26-R/13 of 2012, is affirmed. 28. No orders as to costs. 29. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 30. Records be sent back forthwith, (Satyen Vaidya) Judge September 16, 2025 (vt)