1. Suit for declaration regarding forest land ownership and correction of revenue entries. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(HP) 734
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Romesh Verma, J.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Karmo @ Karam Singh And another - Respondents
RSA No. 381 of 2019
Decided On : 04-08-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Manish Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate.
For the Appellant :Mr. Manish Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate.
Abrupt changes in revenue entries without authority are rebuttable and lack legal sanctity. In second appeals under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact are not disturbed unless perverse, as the High Court cannot substitute its own view for that of the lower courts.
Headnote:(A) H.P. Land Revenue Act, Section 45 - Punjab Land Revenue Act, Section 44 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Sections 96 and 100 - Presumption of correctness of revenue entries - Where latest entries conflict with earlier ones, the later entry is presumed correct unless rebutted - An abrupt change in revenue records without an order from a competent court or authority carries no sanctity or authenticity (Paras 38-41).
(B) Limitation - Suit for declaration - Cause of action arises when the right of the party is infringed or there is a clear threat to infringe such right, and not necessarily from the date of the adverse entry in revenue records (Paras 46-47).
(C) Second Appeal - Scope of interference under Section 100 CPC - High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence to substitute its own view for concurrent findings of fact arrived at by lower courts unless the findings are perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence (Paras 50-54).
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction, claiming ownership and possession of specific land. They alleged that during settlement operations, the possession of the forest department was recorded and the land classification was changed to protected forest without their knowledge or consent. Earlier revenue records showed the land as waste land with tenants in possession. The State contended that the land was a dense forest and the entries were correct based on the factual position on the spot.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the revenue entries were changed abruptly without any order from a competent authority. The State failed to provide any material or legal order to justify the change from the earlier records to the current status of protected forest. Consequently, the entries in favor of the forest department were held to be illegal, null, and void.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the lower courts erred in determining title based on revenue records, whether the suit was barred by limitation, and whether the concurrent findings of fact could be interfered with in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: Revenue entries are pieces of evidence with a rebuttable presumption of truth. When an entry is substituted without a mutation or an order from revenue authorities, the presumption is rebutted by the fact that the alteration was unauthorized. Furthermore, the limitation period for a declaratory suit begins when the party feels aggrieved or their right is infringed, rather than the date of the entry itself. Under Section 100 CPC, the High Court's jurisdiction is limited to substantial questions of law and it cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or contrary to mandatory provisions of law.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- practice and procedure
- evidence
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession; defendant/state asserted the land was dense forest in its possession. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Revenue entries changed abruptly without any order of competent authority, making them illegal and void. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 )
4. Presumption in favour of later revenue entries is rebutted if change is made unauthorisedly or without material. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 44 )
5. Regular second appeal dismissed; concurrent findings of courts below upheld. (Para 59 )
6. What is the effect of an abrupt change in revenue entries without any order of a competent authority?
Such entries carry no sanctity or authenticity, and the presumption of correctness is rebutted. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 44 )
7. When does the limitation period begin for a suit challenging revenue entries?
Limitation begins when the person feels aggrieved, not from the date of the entry itself. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 )
8. Can the High Court in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC interfere with concurrent findings of fact?
No, unless the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 )
JUDGMENT :
Romesh Verma, J.
The instant regular second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge- II, Kangra at Dharamshala (Camp at Dehra), dated 04.12.2018, whereby the appeal filed by the present appellant/defendant was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jawali, District Kangra, dated 16.12.2017 was affirmed, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration was decreed.
2. The facts as emerge in the present case are that the plaintiffs/respondents, Karmo @ Karam Singh and Chanchalo Devi, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the land comprised in Khata No. 16 min, Khatauni No. 53, Khasra No. 2, Plot 1, land measuring 08.25.52 HMs, situated in Mohal Mohli, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra, as per the Jamabandi for the year 2008–09, and the revenue entries showing the defendant in possession of the suit land and the "kisam" of the suit land as "Jungal Mehfusa Gir Mehduda " are categorically illegal, null and void and are mere paper entries, which are not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs.
3. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant has no right, title, or interest over the suit land. During settlement operation conducted by the State Government in the year 1984–85, the officials of the Settlement Authority, without the express knowledge, consent and behind the back of the plaintiffs, recorded the possession of the Forest Department in the column of cultivation and changed the "kisam" of the land to " Jungal Mehfusa Gir Mehduda ". The suit land is in the physical, exclusive possession of the plaintiffs, and the revenue entries showing the defendant to be in possession of the suit land are wrong, null, and void and are required to be deleted from the revenue record.
4. As per the plaintiffs, the settlement officials, without making any inquiry regarding the suit land, incorporated the possession of the defendant in the revenue record on the basis of wrong revenue record and thereby created a cloud over the status of the plaintiffs on the suit land.
5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are in settled possession of the suit land, but in case, during the pendency of the suit, the defendant succeeds in dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land, in that event, decree for possession may kindly be passed in their favour. Therefore, the suit was filed for declaration, permanent prohibitory injunction and, in the alternative, a suit for possession against the defendant.
6. The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, suppression of facts, estoppel, locus standi, limitation, etc. were taken. On merits, it was contended that the suit land is a dense forest and the same is in the possession of the defendant. As per the defendant, the plaintiffs never remained in possession of the suit land. The settlement officials rightly incorporated the possession of the defendant in the revenue record as per the factual position on the spot, as the plaintiffs were never in possession at any point of time. It was stated that since the suit land is a dense forest and is in the continuous possession of the defendant, therefore, the question of dispossession of the plaintiffs from the suit land does not arise at all. It was pleaded that the case projected in the suit is concocted and an afterthought story, which is liable to be rejected. The defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
7. The plaintiffs filed a replication to the written statement, whereby all the averments as made in the plaint were reiterated.
8. The learned trial Court, vide its order dated 24.08.2011, framed the issues in the following manner:
1. Whether revenue entries showing the defendant in possession of the suit land and Kisam of the suit land as Jungal Mehfusa Gair Mehduda, are wrong, illegal, null and void and
