Back
2014 Supreme(HP) 1309
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Rose Bobi and others - Appellants
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others - Respondents
Regular Second Appeal No. 215 of 2002
Decided on : 21-03-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :V.D. Khidtta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:V.K. Verma, Meenakshi Sharma, Addl. Advocate Generals with Tarun Pathak and Parul Negi, Deputy Advocate Generals.
The non-issuance of patta does not affect the right of the plaintiff over the land, and the plaintiff has the right to approach the court when there is a threat to his title.
Headnote:
Patta - Land Ownership Dispute - Nautor Rules - [Section 379 IPC, Indian Forest Act, Section 80 CPC] - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the issuance of patta, the authority's obligation to issue patta, and the impact of non-issuance of patta on land ownership rights. The court highlighted the finality of the order affirming the grant of nautor land, the obligation of the defendants to issue patta, and the plaintiff's right to approach the court when there is a threat to his title.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming ownership of a land and seeking relief against ejectment initiated by the defendants. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision based on the plaintiff's alleged lack of clean hands, time-barred suit, and absence of patta.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the non-issuance of patta did not affect the plaintiff's right over the land, and the plaintiff had the right to approach the court when there was a threat to his title. The lower appellate court's findings were deemed incorrect and erroneous.
Issues: The issues included the ownership of the suit land, dispossessing the plaintiff, non-issuance of notice under Section 80 CPC, valuation of the suit, locus standi, and non-joinder of necessary parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's possession of the suit land and the defendants' failure to issue patta despite the grant of nautor land were crucial in deciding the case. The court also emphasized that the plaintiff had the right to approach the court when there was a threat to his title.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the lower appellate court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's judgment decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff was affirmed.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by plaintiff/appellant against judgment, decree dated 27.2.2002 passed by learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No.102-S/13 of 1999, whereby he reversed the judgment, decree dated 18.8.1999 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No.2, Rohru in Civil Suit No.92-1 of 1995.
2. The plaintiff (hereinafter referred to appellant) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was absolute owner of the land comprised in khata khatauni No.34 min/326 min, khasra Nos.869/1, 868, 860/1 hall, sabik number 528/1, measuring 6 bigha 9 biswa, situate in Chak Melthi, Tehsil Rohru, Distt Shimla (hereinafter referred to suit land), since it had been sanctioned as nautor in favour of his father vide order dated 20.4.1970, file No.57/66 of the Revenue Assistant, Mahasu which order in turn has been affirmed by Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu vide appeal No.57/8 of 70-71 dated 28.4.1971. The defendants (hereinafter referred to as respondents) have no right, title and interest to dispossess the plaintiff/appellant from the suit land, since the nautor granted to the plaintiff/appellant has neither been cancelled nor declared void under the process of law. On these allegations, it has been claimed that the appellant is entitled for grant of patta and mutation in his favour, with further declaration that the proceedings of ejectment initiated by defendant/respondent No.2 along with defendants/respondents No.1 and 2 on dated 8.6.1995 were null and void and not binding upon the appellant.
3. Written statements have been filed jointly by the defendants/respondents No.1 and 3 while separate written statement was filed on behalf of defendant/respondent No.2. In the written statement of defendants/respondents No.1 and 3, preliminary objections of cause of action, locus standi, jurisdiction, maintainability, non-joinder of necessary parties and bad for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 80 CPC were raised. On merits, it was admitted that the father of the plaintiff was sanctioned nautor land comprised in khasra No.860, 869 and 869/1, measuring 6-19 bigha ( old khasra No. 528/1) on the recommendation of Gram Panchayat, Chak Melthi.
4. It was further averred that the forest department had raised an objection stating that this area contained a number of forest trees and even an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu who dismissed the same. It was further averred that the plaintiff/appellant was never put in possession as no patta of the land was issued to him. At the time of issuing patta, the father of the plaintiff/appellant had died and this sanction order was to be passed by a competent authority after obtaining clearance from the forest department and the forest department had objected to this sanction and moreover the Deputy Commissioner had not signed the patta. However, it was admitted that the father of the plaintiff/appellant had deposited the nazrana. It was averred that the plaintiff/appellant had also encroached upon the Government land comprised in khasra No.48/1, measuring 0-31-01 hectares, situate in Demarcated Protected Forest, Shallan C-10. It was thus, prayed that the plaintiff/appellant was having no right, title and interest over the suit land and therefore, the suit be dismissed.
5. The suit was contested by defendant/respondent No.2 by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections of grounds of valuation, cause of action, locus standi, non-joinder of necessary parties and the suit is being bad for non-compliance of Section 80 CPC were raised. On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff/appellant had encroached upon khasra No.48/2, measuring 4-3 bighas, which was Demarcated Protected Forest (DPF), as such the plaintiff/appellant had no right to possess the land. It was claimed that the land was owned and possessed by the State of Himachal Pradesh as is evident from the revenue record.
6. It was pl
