Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Kuldip Singh and others – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. and others - Respondent
R.S.A. No. 53 of 2012
Decided on : 04-11-2014
Satha - Land Lease Dispute - Indian Forest Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The court analyzed the Satha document, which was a perpetual lease granted by the Ruler of Bilaspur State, and the distinction between lease and license under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Indian Easements Act, 1882. The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to the land lease as permanent lessees based on the Satha document and the absence of contrary evidence. The court also held that the revenue records and forest settlement report did not override the rights granted in the Satha document. The court concluded that the lower courts' findings were perverse and set aside the judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiffs.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming to be permanent lessees of a grass land known as 'Ghas Godam Mundkhar' and sought relief of injunction against the defendants from interfering with their possession and auctioning the grass. The defendants contested the claim, denying the plaintiffs' status as permanent lease holders and asserting that the land was demarcated protected forest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the Satha document granted them a perpetual lease, and the revenue records and forest settlement report did not override the rights granted in the Satha document. The court concluded that the lower courts' findings were perverse and decreed in favor of the plaintiffs.
Issues: The issues included the status of the plaintiffs as permanent lease holders, interference by the defendants, entitlement to relief of injunction and declaration, maintainability of the suit, locus standi, limitation, jurisdiction, service of notice, valuation of the suit, continuous possession, adverse possession, termination of the Satha, and the land's status as demarcated forest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Satha document as a perpetual lease, the distinction between lease and license under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Indian Easements Act, 1882, and the lack of evidence to override the rights granted in the Satha document.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiffs, decreeing the suit in their favor as permanent lease holders of the land.
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
1. The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction to the effect that they are permanent lessees of the grass land known as ?Ghas Godam Mundkhar? comprised in Khasra Nos. 3 and 4 of the revenue estate No. 252/1, Jangal Jhanjiar Tehsil Ghumarwin and that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the said land and from auctioning the grass of the said land.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that their father late Mian Lekh Ram was granted the aforesaid land by the then ruler of Bilaspur State, Sir Raja Vijay Chand Sahib Bahadur. The grant was made on 19 Sawan 1977 BK and a document known as ?Satha? was issued on 23 Sawan, 1977 BK. This ?Satha? was duly signed by the then ruler Sh. Vijay Chand. It was conveyed through the said ?Satha? that Sh. Lekh Ram aforesaid would be entitled to the grass of the aforesaid forest against an annual rent of Rs.5/-. Mian Lekh Ram continued enjoying the aforesaid right of cutting the grass till his death in the year 1953 and thereafter the plaintiffs are enjoying the said right and are in possession of the land, in question. Mian Lekh Ram had been paying rent of Rs. 5/- per annum regularly to the State Government. Similarly, the plaintiffs continued paying the said rent after the death of their father. However, subsequently, the said rent was enhanced from Rs. 5/- to Rs. 7/- per annum. It is further mentioned that the land is about 100 acres.
Previously, this land used to be a demarcated forest under the ownership and possession of late Ruler of Bilaspur, but, subsequently when it was allotted to the father of the plaintiffs, it was taken out of the list of the demarcated forest and was declared as Ghas Godam. Thereafter, Khasra Nos. 3 and 4 was allotted to Mian Lekh Ram and thereafter the plaintiffs continued enjoying the right aforesaid till 1970. It was in 1970 that the State Government decided to put the forest into auction in respect of the grass which is grown in the said land. Having come to know the intention of the Government, the plaintiffs served a notice upon the State Government under Section 80 CPC. Consequently, the auction was stayed and the Government referred the matter for legal opinion of the Law Department. The main question for interpretation and opinion was the ?Satha? aforesaid. The Law Department opined that ?Satha? in question, was a perpetual and heritable lease and that the plaintiffs had right over the land in dispute. Subsequently, Kuldip Singh Patyal one of the plaintiffs preferred an application on 13.11.1973 to the Collector Ghumarwin for recording the factum of aforesaid lease in the revenue record. The said Collector passed an order on 26.3.1974 and ordered that an entry be made in the revenue record in respect of the said right of the plaintiffs. However, the defendants preferred an appeal against the said order of the Collector. The Commissioner directed the plaintiffs to get the matter settled through the Civil Court. The plaintiffs brought the present suit and also availed of the opportunity of filing an appeal against the order of the Divisional Commissioner. The appeal was pending before the Financial Commissioner, who had granted stay order against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Thereafter, the defendants have been fixing various dates for putting the grass of the forest, in question, to auctioned. The defendant No.4, Shiv Ram Arya, DFO, Bilaspur had fixed the auction of the said land for 4.8.1976 and 28.8.1976 despite the stay order of the Financial Commissioner and it was with the intervention of the Collector concerned that the said auction was not held. It is stated that the defendants have admitted the right of the plaintiffs over
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
