Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: June 28 vs Jai Ram on 7 July, 2025
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1 2025:HHC:21389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RSA No. 60 of 2019
Reserved on: June 28, 2025
.
Date of Decision: July 7, 2025
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ....Appellants.
Versus
Jai Ram ..Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the Appellant: Ms.Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate
r General.
For the Respondent: Mr.C.D. Negi, Advocate.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-
State, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short
'CPC') against judgment and decree dated 31.10.2018, passed
by Additional District Judge-(II), Shimla, H.P., in Civil Appeal
No.34-S/13 of 2016, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and
others vs. Jai Ram, whereby judgment and decree dated
24.09.2016, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2,
Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., in Civil Suit No.23/1 of 2009/08,
titled as Jai Ram vs. State of H.P. and others, has been affirmed.
2. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, shall be referred as per
their status in the Civil Suit, for convenience.
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 2025:HHC:21389
3. Plaintiff filed the aforesaid Civil Suit for declaration
and permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant-
State and its Officers, for declaring that land comprised in Khasra
.
No.498/1, measuring 14 Bigha 12 Biswas, situated in Chak
Kuthari, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla (suit land) was sanctioned
to the plaintiff under Nautor Rules vide order dated 20.11.1970,
issued by the Revenue Assistant, Competent Authority, under the
Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred
to as 'Nautor Rules') and thereafter, Patta was issued to the
plaintiff and he was put in possession after depositing Nazrana of
`730/- in the Government Treasury.
4. Case of the plaintiff is that after putting plaintiff in
possession, he cultivated the land and sown different crops.
5. Case of the plaintiff is that he joined Indian Army in
the year 1965 and served at different places in India and being in
service in the Army, he could not verify entries in the revenue
record and he was under impression that relevant entries had
already been carried out after necessary attestation of mutation
of ownership in his favour.
6. According to the plaintiff, settlement operation in the
area was conducted in 1981-1982, but even at that time, despite
finding plaintiff in possession, no entry was recorded in favour of
the plaintiff despite submitting representation to the Settlement
Agency.
7. Further case of the plaintiff is that sanction of the
Nautor to the plaintiff was made about more than 30 years back
3 2025:HHC:21389
and after coming to know about the fact that in the revenue
record, 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, but inspite
of best efforts of the plaintiff, Revenue Agency, did not make any
sincere efforts to trace the said file and to conduct inquiry, so as
to construe secondary record of grant of Nautor in favour of the
plaintiff.
8. Thereafter, plaintiff issued notice under Section 80 of
CPC to the defendants.
r When no action was taken by the
defendants, plaintiff was constrained to file the Civil Suit.
9. Suit was contested by the defendants by taking
various technical objections with main plea that Nautor, as
claimed, was never sanctioned under relevant Scheme to the
plaintiff, and had it been sanctioned, there would have been
entries in the revenue record and attestation of mutation in
favour of the plaintiff. It was reiteration that as no Nautor land
was granted to the plaintiff at any point of time, therefore, there
was no such entry of allotment of Nautor land in old Jamabandi
nor any mutation has been attested in favour of the plaintiff.
10. By filing replication, plaintiff had reiterated his stand
taken in the plaint.
11. Plaintiff has examined two witnesses, including him
as PW.1 and has placed reliance upon Ex.PW.1/A, examination-in-
chief by way of affidavit of Jai Ram; Ex.PW.1/B, Notice under
Section 80 of CPC; Ex.PW.1/C to Ex.PW.1/E acknowledgments of
4 2025:HHC:21389
service of notices; Ex.PW.2/A, copy of Misal Band Register; and
also Mark Z-1, Z-2, P-1, P-3 copies of letters; and Mark P-2 copy
of Jamabandi.
.
12. Defendants have examined two witnesses, i.e. DW.1
and DW.2 and have produced no document in evidence.
13. After considering material on record, suit was
decreed in favour of the plaintiff declaring him owner in
possession of the suit land, consequently directing the
defendants to incorporate name of the plaintiff in the revenue
record and restraining the defendants from allotting the suit land
by way of grant or lease any portion of the suit land to any third
person.
14. Appeal preferred by the defendants has been
dismissed by the Additional District Judge-II, Shimla, H.P.
15. Present appeal was admitted on following substantial
questions of law:-
"1. Whether the findings arrived by the Ld. District
Judge are against the law and facts on record and
contrary to the provisions to the H.P. Nautor Rules, 1968?
2. Whether the Ld. District Judge has misread and
misconstrued provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act?
3. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent
was hopelessly barred and on such ground liable to be
rejected straightway?
16. In examination-in-chief of plaintiff placed on record
as Ex.PW.1/A, plaintiff reiterated and reaffirmed his stand in
consonance with pleadings. In cross-examination, he had stated
5 2025:HHC:21389
that application for Nautor was submitted by him in the year
1969 and Nautor was sanctioned in the year 1970.
17. PW.2-Chunni Lal is Copying Agent, Record Room,
.
Rohru. He has proved on record certified copy of Misal Band
Register Ex.PW.2/A with deposition that out of Khasra No.498,
measuring 17 Bigha 17 Biswas, land measuring 14 Bigha 12
Biswas, comprised in Khasra No.498/1 situated in Chak Kuthari,
Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., was sanctioned in favour of
the plaintiff as evident from Ex.PW.2/A which is true and correct
copy of record brought by him. Record was seen and returned.
There is nothing in cross-examination to impeach the credibility
of this witness. Contents of Ex.PW.2/A, as stated by this witness,
in examination-in-chief, have not been disputed in cross-
examination.
18. DW.1-Kuldeep Singh denied the claim of the plaintiff
by deposing that suit land was never allotted or granted in
Nautor to the plaintiff against Nazrana of `730/-. He has
expressed his ignorance to the fact that suit land is in possession
of plaintiff since 1970 till date. He has also stated that he was
not able to identify Khasra No.498/1 and he was not knowing
about crop sown by the plaintiff in the suit land.
19. DW.2-Pratap Singh is Kanungo, Circle Tikkar, Tehsil
Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. He, in cross-examination, has stated
that suit land falls in his circle and new Khasra Number of old
Khasra No.498, as per record, is 998/1. he has submitted that
there is no record available with the Department with respect to
6 2025:HHC:21389
sanction of Nautor in the year 1970 nor there is any entry in this
regard in the revenue record. Though he has stated that plaintiff
has filed this suit for occupying Government land unauthorizedly,
.
but in cross-examination, he has admitted that Ex.PW.2/A is
certified copy of Misal Band Register, which is record of
Government of Himachal Pradesh. He has also stated that
record of sanction of Nautor is not kept with him. He has
admitted that according to Misal Band Register Ex.PW.2/A, land
measuring 14 Bigha 12 Biswas comprised in Khasra No.498/1, i.e.
suit land, was sanctioned as Nautor in favour of the plaintiff with
further clarification that in Misal Band Register, after sanctioning
of Nautor its number is shown in red ink. He has also admitted
that in Ex.PW.2/A in red circle 'A' and 'B' there is mention of
sanction of Nautor and its number. He has admitted that plaintiff
had filed applications for supply of record under Right to
Information Act. He deposed that he was not knowing that on
raising demand by the Revenue Department, plaintiff had
deposited `730/- with the Revenue Department.
20. Only document exhibited on record is Ex.PW.2/A
which is certified copy of Misal Band Register. In the column of
allottee/owner, name of petitioner has been mentioned as Jai
Ram Fauji, son of Jewar, Caste Harijan, Sakan Kuthari. There is
detail of Khasra No.498/1 in this document alongwith purpose of
grant of Nautor for cultivation. In next column, there is entry by
the Revenue Assistant, Rohru, about sanction of Nautor in favour
of Jai Ram of Khasra No.498/1, measuring 14-12 Bigha on
7 2025:HHC:21389
payment of `730/- as Nazrana for cultivation for horticulture
purpose. In last column allotment No.152 dated 21.12.1970 has
been mentioned under signatures of Tehsildar, Rohru. There is
.
no other material or documents, proved on record, in accordance
with law either in favour of plaintiff or in favour of defendants.
21. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted
that plaintiff has never deposited any Nazrana, as there is no
record available in this regard and, therefore, for non deposit of
Nazrana, process of grant of Nautor in favour of the plaintiff was
not completed and, thus, no Patta was granted to him and there
was no question of sanctioning of/attestation of mutation in this
regard and putting the plaintiff in possession.
22. To substantiate her submissions, learned Deputy
Advocate General, has referred document Mark P-3 produced by
the plaintiff himself. She has submitted that documents, which
are not exhibited, but marked only, can also be taken into
consideration by the Court for adjudicating the matter. To
substantiate her plea, she has referred judgment passed by the
Supreme Court in P.C. Purushothama Reddiar vs. S. Perumal, AIR
1972 SC 608.
23. Plea of learned Deputy Advocate General is
misconceived as in the aforesaid judgment also, reports, which
were considered inadmissible in evidence for non examination of
Head Constable who had recorded the said reports, were taken
into consideration by referring pronouncements in Arjuno Naiko
and others vs. Madonomohano Naiko and others, AIR 1940, Privy
8 2025:HHC:21389
Council 153. In the said case, police reports in reference were
made by the Government officials, who were not shown to be
inimical towards the respondent or his party and reports were
.
recorded during the course of performing official duty by the
Head Constable at the time when there was no dispute between
the parties. Therefore, this judgment is not applicable in present
case.
24. Learned Deputy Advocate General has also referred
judgment of the Supreme Court in Vimla Devi and others vs.
National Insurance Company Limited and another, (2019) 2 SCC
186, wherein it has been held that if Court did not exhibit the
documents, despite appellants referring the same at the time of
evidence, then appellants cannot be denied of their right to claim
the compensation on such ground as it was nothing but a
procedural lapse.
25. In aforesaid judgment also, proceedings before MACT
were in reference, and otherwise also the facts are entirely
different in present case as in present case, stand of the
defendants, as evident from the pleadings in written statement
as well as deposition of its witnesses, is that Nautor was never
granted to the plaintiff. Whereas, document Mark P-3 refers to
allotment of land to the plaintiff as Nautor land vide order dated
20.11.1970 subject to deposit of `730/- Nazrana. If this
document is considered, as prayed, then it is also contrary to the
defence set up by defendants. Therefore, this judgment is also
of no help to the defendants.
9 2025:HHC:21389
26. It is settled law that mere marking of an exhibit does
not dispense with proof of document as reiterated by the
Supreme Court in Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others vs. Yelmarti
.
Satyam alias Satteyya and others, (1972) 4 SCC 562.
27. There is no question of proving the document by
placing it on record as Mark P-3, particularly when document has
not been placed on record by the defendants, but by the plaintiff.
This document does not have the date of issuance but only
instead of date only, 'August 1972' has been mentioned in it.
There is no signature of the Issuing Authority.
r This document
also does not bear any number or endorsement number. This
document appears to be a draft letter. There is no proof that this
letter was actually issued or not.
28. Learned Deputy Advocate General has failed to point
out that conclusion arrived at by the Courts below is contrary to
which of the provisions of the Nautor Rules and in what manner
provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act have been misread and
misconstrued by the Courts below.
29. Taking into consideration document Mark P-3, no
benefit can be derived by the defendants. It is also apt to record
that if this document is taken into consideration, then it
demolishes the stand taken by the defendants in their written
statement as well as by their witnesses, wherein allotment and
sanction of Nautor land has been completely denied. Whereas,
this document speaks about sanction of Nautor of suit land to the
10 2025:HHC:21389
plaintiff subject to deposit Nazrana of `730/- Therefore, even
consideration of this document also goes against the defendants.
30. Though plea has been taken that suit is time barred,
.
but no document or pleadings have been proved on record to
substantiate the same. 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. r 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.
31. For material available on record preponderance of
probability lies in favour of the plaintiff.
32. Substantial questions of law are answered in
aforesaid terms.
33. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the
appeal and accordingly appeal is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
July 7, 2025
(Purohit)
