Procedural Lapses By Revenue Authorities Can't Defeat Substantive Rights Under Himachal Pradesh Nautor Rules: High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that procedural lapses by the revenue authority cannot defeat substantive rights vested in a party.
The court opined that due to procedural lapses of the revenue authorities in updating records, the petitioner, an Ex-army man, could not be denied his right over a forest land, allotted to him under the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968.
Justice Vivek Singh Thakur said: “It is case of the plaintiff that immediately after knowing about lapse on the part of the Revenue Authorities, in updating the revenue record, he approached the concerned Authority and when concerned Authority failed to rectify the mistake, he immediately approached the Court by filing this suit. The Courts below have rightly appreciated the material and facts in this regard also with observation that plaintiff was in Indian Army and after putting him in possession, he was continuously cultivating the land and immediately after having knowledge about incorrect revenue entries, he approached the concerned authorities as well as Court well in time.”
Background Facts:
The plaintiff, Jai Ram had filed a civil Suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the State and its officers. He asserted that he was the rightful owner of land situated in District Shimla, which had been sanctioned to him under the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968 via an order in 1970, issued by the Revenue Assistant.
Thereafter, land revenue record was issued to the plaintiff and possession was given to him after he deposited Rs.730 as Nazrana in Government Treasury. The plaintiff submitted that after getting possession of land, he cultivated the land and had sown different crops.
He submitted that, as he was in the Indian army and had served at different places, he could not verify entries in the revenue record and was under impression that relevant entries had already been carried out after necessary attestation of mutation of ownership in his favour.
In 1981-1982 a settlement operation took place in the area, however despite the plaintiff being in possession, there was no entry of his ownership in the records.
When he got to know about the omission, that his name has not been entered as owner in possession, plaintiff made representation to the Revenue Agency to locate his original file of grant of Nautor land to the plaintiff. However, the file was not located and no sincere effort was made to re-construct the record.
When no action was taken on his representations, the petitioner issued a notice under Section 80 CPC to the State authorities, asking them to correct the omission in the revenue records. Despite, the notice, the Revenue Department did not correct the record and did not trace the original file properly. After which the plaintiff approached the civil court.
The Suit was decided in favour of the plaintiff, and he was declared the rightful owner. The state was directed to enter his name in the revenue record and was restrained from giving the land to a third party.
Aggrieved by the Trial Court's decision, the State filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge-II, Shimla, stating that the plaintiff was never given the land. However, the State's Appeal was rejected, and the Trial Court's decision was upheld.
Challenging both the Trial Court's and Appellate Court's decisions, the State filed a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC before the High Court.
Findings:
The Court observed that during the trial, the plaintiff stated that the application for Nautor was submitted by him in the year 1969 and was sanctioned in the year 1970. This fact was affirmed by the copying agent of the Record room.
Further, one of the State's witnesses denied the claim of plaintiff of the land being given to him, but admitted to the fact that he did not know that the plaintiff had been in possession of land since 1970. Also, he did not know about the crops sown by the plaintiff.
The Court noted that the State failed to produce any evidence to prove that the Nazrana was not paid or that the grant process was incomplete. The only document relied upon by the State was Mark P-3, which referred to the allotment of land to the plaintiff as Nautor Land. The Court stated that this document supported the plaintiff's claim rather than refuting it.
Thus, the High Court did not find any merit in the contentions of the State. It held that procedural lapses or missing files by the Revenue Authorities cannot defeat the plaintiff's substantive rights established by credible documentary and oral evidence.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Second appeal and upheld the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.
Case Name: State of H.P. & Ors. V/s Jai Ram
Case No.: RSA No. 60 of 2019
Date of Decision: 07.07.2025
For the Appellant: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General
For the Respondents: Mr. C.D. Negi, Advocate