RAMESH CHAND vs JAI KARAN DECEASED THROUGH LRS BIMLA DEVI AND ORS

Headnote:(A) H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act - Section 104 - Right of resumption by landowner - Non-occupancy tenants - Conferment of proprietary rights - Where a landowner is entitled to resume land because they hold less than the prescribed limit of irrigated or un-irrigated land, the conferment of proprietary rights on the tenant is not automatic for the entire land - Such rights vest only in the remaining land after the right of resumption is exercised - An inquiry is necessary to determine the extent and portion of land to be resumed before mutations in favor of tenants are recorded (Paras 14, 15, 17, 19).

(B) Evidence - Presumption of official acts - Official acts are presumed to have been done regularly - The burden of proof lies on the party asserting the contrary to demonstrate that a particular official application or proceeding was not pending or was conducted without jurisdiction (Para 22).

Facts of the case:
Non-occupancy tenants sought a declaration of ownership over land and challenged the review of a mutation that had previously conferred proprietary rights upon them. The review was based on a Land Reforms Officer's order allowing the landowner to resume a portion of the land. The tenants alleged fraud and collusion, while the landowner contended that he was entitled to resume the land as he possessed less than the prescribed limit.

Findings of Court:
The landowner was found to be entitled to resume land under the statutory limits. The order of resumption was passed after hearing the parties. The tenants were correctly declared owners only of the remaining land.

Issues: Whether it was open to the Land Reforms Officer to grant proprietary rights to the tenant during the pendency of proceedings for resumption of land and whether the findings of the lower appellate court were based on the evidence on record.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for landowners entitled to resume land under Section 104(1) of the Act, ownership does not automatically vest in the tenant for the entire holding. The right of the tenant to acquire proprietary rights is subject to the landowner's right of resumption. Furthermore, official acts are presumed regular, and the absence of a specific form on record does not invalidate an order if the proceeding is mentioned in the official order.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Tenants claimed ownership of suit land under H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, challenging review of mutation based on resumption order. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Appellant argued resumption application was pending, so proprietary rights could not vest; respondents argued order was without jurisdiction and review invalid. (Para 3 , 11 , 13 )

3. Appeal allowed; appellate court's decree set aside, trial court's dismissal of suit restored. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 )

4. Whether proprietary rights can be conferred on a tenant during the pendency of a landowner's resumption application under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act?

No; conferment of proprietary rights is not automatic when a landowner entitled to resumption has a pending application. The tenant becomes owner only of land remaining after resumption is ordered. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )

5. Whether the Land Reforms Officer had jurisdiction to pass an order of resumption and conferment of proprietary rights?

Yes; the Land Reforms Officer acted within jurisdiction by passing an order for resumption of land to the landowner and conferring proprietary rights over the remaining land on the tenants. (Para 24 )

6. Whether a party must produce the original LR-V application on record to prove its pendency, or can the presumption of regularity of official acts apply?

The presumption of regularity of official acts applies; the burden is on the party challenging the order to show no application was pending, and mere non-production of the form does not invalidate the order. (Para 22 , 23 )

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.9.2004, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2003, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kangra, H.P., (learned Trial Court) were set aside.

(The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were awake before the learned trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that they are owners-in-possession of the suit land mentioned in para-1 of the plaint and the review dated 14.3.2000 of the Mutation No. 349 already attested on 15.6.1997 based on LR-V, File No. 1255, decided on 23.3.1999 is the result of fraud, misrepresentation and collusion having no effect on their rights over the suit land. A consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs or interfering with their possession over the suit land was also sought. It was asserted that the plaintiffs were non-occupancy tenants of the suit land. They became owners after the commencement of the H.P. Tenancy Land Reforms Act. A Mutation No.349 was attested on 15.6.1997 to this effect. The defendants obtained a decision in File No. 1255, decided on 23.3.1999, without informing the plaintiffs and got the mutation reviewed on 14.3.2000. Hari Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, had neither filed any LR-V form nor was he entitled to resume the land because he already possessed more than 15 kanals of land in Khata No.22. The defendants started interference with the plaintiffs’ possession over the suit land. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of cause of action, locus standi, jurisdiction and maintainability, the suit having not been properly valued for Court fees and jurisdiction, the suit being barred by limitation, and the plaintiffs being estopped from filing the suit by their act, conduct and acquiescence. The contents of the plaint were admitted to the extent that the plaintiffs were entered as tenants of the suit land. It was admitted that Mutation No. 349 was attested on 15.6.199. It was asserted that this mutation was correctly reviewed on 14.3.2000 based on the decision on LR-V No.1255, Case No. 2124, decided on 23.3.1999, titled Hari Ram Vs. Gorkhu etc. The Mutation No. 349 was wrongly entered without considering the LR-V application filed by Hari Ram on 28 November 1975. The mutation could not have been attested during the pendency of the resumption application. Hari Ram, who possessed less land than prescribed, was entitled to resume the land. Plaintiffs have not filed any appeal against the order, and the present suit is not maintainable. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed.

5. The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 21.2.2003: -

1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit land? OPP.

2. Whether the impugned order dated 23.3.1999 is the result of fraud, misrepresentation, and collusion, as alleged? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of an injunction, as prayed for? OPP.

4. Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

5. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD.

6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD.

7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction, if so, what is the correct valuation of the suit property? OPD.

8. Whether the suit is not within time? OPD.

9. Whether the plaintif

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
RAMESH CHAND – Appellant
Versus
JAI KARAN DECEASED THROUGH LRS BIMLA DEVI AND ORS – Respondent
RSA/505/2004

For landowners entitled to resume land under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, conferment of proprietary rights to tenants is not automatic for the entire land but is limited to the portion remaining after lawful resumption.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Whether proprietary rights can be conferred on a tenant during the pendency of a landowner's resumption application under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act?

5. Whether the Land Reforms Officer had jurisdiction to pass an order of resumption and conferment of proprietary rights?

6. Whether a party must produce the original LR-V application on record to prove its pendency, or can the presumption of regularity of official acts apply?

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLARAMESH CHAND – AppellantVersusJAI KARAN DECEASED THROUGH LRS BIMLA DEVI AND ORS – RespondentRSA/505/2004

For landowners entitled to resume land under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, conferment of proprietary rights to tenants is not automatic for the entire land but is limited to the portion remaining after lawful resumption.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Whether proprietary rights can be conferred on a tenant during the pendency of a landowner's resumption application under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act?

5. Whether the Land Reforms Officer had jurisdiction to pass an order of resumption and conferment of proprietary rights?

6. Whether a party must produce the original LR-V application on record to prove its pendency, or can the presumption of regularity of official acts apply?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
RAMESH CHAND – Appellant
Versus
JAI KARAN DECEASED THROUGH LRS BIMLA DEVI AND ORS – Respondent
RSA/505/2004