KARMO vs STATE - 2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2470

Headnote:(A) HP Grant of Nautor Land to Landless Persons and Other Eligible Persons Scheme, 1975 - Clause 11 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 5 - Meaning of 'transfer' - Restriction on transfer of land granted under the scheme for 20 years - Whether execution of a Will amounts to a transfer - 'Transfer' as defined under Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act refers to acts inter vivos, meaning acts between living persons - A Will is a legal declaration of the intention of a testator with respect to his property to be carried into effect after his death and does not operate between two living persons - In the absence of a specific definition within a scheme, the meaning assigned to the word 'transfer' in the Transfer of Property Act shall be applied - Execution of a Will does not constitute a 'transfer' within the meaning of the prohibition clause of the scheme. (Paras 20-28)

(B) Resumption of land - Failure to cultivate land within two years of allotment - Power of State to resume - Civil Court cannot exercise the option of the State to resume land for non-cultivation if no such proceedings were initiated by the State during the lifetime of the allottee. (Para 30)

Facts of the case:
Land was allotted to an allottee under a government scheme for landless persons. The allottee executed a Will in favor of the plaintiffs. The State challenged the validity of the resulting mutation, contending that the execution of the Will constituted a prohibited transfer under the scheme, which barred transfers for 20 years from the date of taking possession. The lower courts dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, holding that the Will was a transfer and that the land was rightfully resumed by the State because the allottee had failed to cultivate the land within two years of the allotment.

Findings of Court:
The court found that a Will is a testamentary disposition and not a transfer inter vivos. Therefore, it does not violate the prohibition on transfers under the land grant scheme. Additionally, the court found that the State had not initiated any proceedings for the resumption of land due to non-cultivation during the allottee's lifetime; consequently, the Civil Court could not exercise this executive option on behalf of the State.

Issues: 1. Whether the execution of a Will amounts to a "transfer" in terms of a land grant scheme that bars the transfer of land by the grantee within a specified period. 2. Whether the land was rightly resumed by the State on the ground that the grantee failed to cultivate the land within two years of the allotment.

Ratio Decidendi: The term 'transfer' is construed as an act inter vivos as defined in the Transfer of Property Act. Since a Will only takes effect after the death of the testator and is revocable during their lifetime, it does not constitute a transfer of property between living persons. Where a statutory scheme does not provide a specific definition of 'transfer', the meaning established in the Transfer of Property Act prevails. Furthermore, the power to resume land for breach of conditions, such as non-cultivation, is a discretionary power of the State and cannot be exercised by a Civil Court.

Result: Appeal allowed, judgments and decrees of the lower courts set aside, and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Appeal against concurrent decrees upholding resumption of Nautor land; whether will amounts to transfer under scheme. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Appellant: will not a transfer under Act; Respondent: purposive interpretation bars transfer for 20 years. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )

3. Appeal allowed; concurrent decrees set aside; plaintiffs' suit decreed as prayed. (Para 33 )

4. Does executing a Will constitute a 'transfer' under the Nautor Land Scheme, 1975?

No, a Will is not a transfer inter vivos; it operates after death and falls outside the definition of transfer under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 27 )

5. Can civil courts determine whether the allottee failed to cultivate Nautor land within two years for resumption?

No, the option to resume land for non-cultivation is given to the State and cannot be exercised by civil courts. (Para 29 , 30 )

6. What is the effect of the legislature specifically including 'Will' in one statute but not in another?

The exclusion of 'Will' from the Nautor Scheme's transfer restriction indicates a conscious decision not to include testamentary dispositions. (Para 28 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

2026:HHC:17119

RSA No. 112 of 2008

Karmo & ors. ...Appellants Versus State of HP & ors. ...Respondents

For the Appellants :

Mr C.N. Singh, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 :

Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

For Respondents No.3, 5 to :

Mr Nimish Gupta, Advocate.

12, 14, 16 to 23, 25 to 28

and 30.

Respondent No. 24 is stated to have expired.

For Respondents No.13(a), :

None

29(b) to 29(g)

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Reserved on: 24.3.2026

Date of Decision: 15.5.2026

Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Yes.

RSA No. 112 of 2008

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2007, passed by learned District Judge, Chamba, H.P. (learned Appellate court), vide which the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2006, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chamba, HP (learned Trial Court), were upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned trial Court for convenience.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner-in-possession of the suit land described in the head note of the plaint by virtue of the Will executed by Molam in their favour and the order dated 4.5.1987, passed by Collector as afÏrmed by the Divisional Commissioner on 28.6.1988 and mutation No. 226 dated 24.8.1989 are illegal, null and void which do not affect the rights of the parties. A consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff was also sought. A relief in the alternative for possession was claimed in case the defendants succeed in taking possession of the suit land during the pendency of the suit. It was asserted that the suit land was allotted to Molam. He executed a Will in favour of the plaintiffs on 22.10.1981 in lieu of the services rendered by them to him. A mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff on 24.8.1986. An appeal was preferred, which was allowed on 4.5.1987. The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, which was dismissed on 28.6.1988. The defendants started interference with the possession of the plaintiff based on the mutation; hence, a suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by defendants No. 1 and 2 by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding the suit being barred by limitation, lack of cause of action and jurisdiction, Molam not being competent to bequeath the land granted to him under the Nautor Scheme, 1975, Molam having violated the conditions of the grant made in his favour, the suit having not been properly valued for court fees and jurisdiction, and no legal and valid notice having been served upon the defendants. The contents of the plaint were admitted to the extent that the suit land was allotted to Molam as a Nautor land. It was admitted that a Will dated 22.10.1981 was produced by the plaintiff before learned AC 2nd Grade for mutation on 11.4.1984. The defendants objected to the mutation but learned AC 2nd Grade sanctioned the mutation. This order was set aside by the Sub Divisional Collector, Chamba, HP. The order of the Sub Divisional Collector was upheld by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra. The suit land could not have been transferred to any person for a period of 15 years from the date of allotment. Molam had failed to break up the land within the period of two years from the date of taking over the possession of the land. There is no infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Collector and the Divisional Commissioner; hence, it was prayed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2470

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
KARMO – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
RSA/112/2008

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Does executing a Will constitute a 'transfer' under the Nautor Land Scheme, 1975?

5. Can civil courts determine whether the allottee failed to cultivate Nautor land within two years for resumption?

6. What is the effect of the legislature specifically including 'Will' in one statute but not in another?

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2470

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLAKARMO – AppellantVersusSTATE – RespondentRSA/112/2008

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Does executing a Will constitute a 'transfer' under the Nautor Land Scheme, 1975?

5. Can civil courts determine whether the allottee failed to cultivate Nautor land within two years for resumption?

6. What is the effect of the legislature specifically including 'Will' in one statute but not in another?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
KARMO – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
RSA/112/2008