IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 153 of 2000 Date of Decision : November 4, 2009 State of H.P. and others Appellants. Versus Sh. Chaggar Singh Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants : Mr. J. S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General, for the appellants. For the respondent : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate, for the respondent. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The defendants’ appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2 as appended with the grounds of appeal: “1. Whether the court can give direction to acquire the disputed land? 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the principles of estopple?” Land comprising khata No. 85 min, khatauni No. 175, khasra Nos. 1062, 1063 measuring 0-07-47 hectares, situated in Tika Dak, Mouja Gurial, Tehsil Nurpur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 to as the suit land) was allotted to the plaintiff through ‘patta’ in the year 1975 when the possession was also handed over to him. However, in the year 1982-83 the possession was taken over by the State for the public purpose, namely construction of road called “Raja-Ka-Talab-Gurial Road”. Consequently the plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 493 of 1994 on 23.9.1994 in the court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Nurpur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. claiming possession of the suit land on the ground that the road had been constructed without his consent. The defendant-State (appellant herein) resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that suit land having been allotted by the State, the plaintiff acquiesced to taking back the possession of the same. Hence no relief could be granted. The trial Court, in terms of its judgment and decree dated 2.2.1998 decreed the suit and held the plaintiff entitled to possession of the suit land. Aggrieved of the same the defendant-State filed an appeal and in terms of the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.11.1998, passed in Civil Appeal No. 51-N/98, titled as State of H.P. & others versus Sh. Chaggar Singh, the Addl. District Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, modified the decree and directed the State to take steps for acquiring the suit land in accordance with law and pay compensation to the plaintiff within a period of one year. 3 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. In my considered view both the Courts below misdirected themselves in decreeing the plaintiff’s suit. The first appellate Court could not have given any direction to acquire the suit land for the reason that the land in question actually stood allotted as a grant to the plaintiff by way of ‘patta’ in the year 1975. The same is evident from Jamabandi (revenue record) Ext. PA and is also the pleaded case of the plaintiff. The allotment of such land was under the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Rules, 1968. The plaintiff was entitled to relief, if any, thereunder. The Division Bench of this Court in almost similar circumstance, while deciding C.W.P. No. 676 of 1998, titled as Bresti Ram versus State of H.P. and others, in terms of its judgment and decree dated 20.4.1999 held as under: “We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials on record. From the perusal of the record, we find that the petitioner was granted the nautor land under the relevant provisions of the Nautor Rules and the Patta was issued in his favour, whereunder a stipulation has been provided that in case the resumption of the land, no compensation shall be awarded to the grantee. In the present case, since the land to the extent of 0-16-2 Biswas out of the total land granted in favour of the petitioner by way of nautor stands resumed in favour of the State and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to 4 the amount of compensation for acquiring his land for the construction of link road, which is concedingly a public purpose. The grant in favour of the petitioner under the Nautor Rules, was indisputably free of any costs and gratis and not on collection of market value. In that view of the matter when the land has been taken back for public purpose-viz., laying of a public road, no compensation can be claimed or awarded to him, who was the beneficiary of a grant made free in his favour earlier. The petitioner had paid only Rs. 103.65 paise as Nazrana to the State for the grant of 4-2-18 Bighas of land, which is definitely a very paltry amount and it was the market value of the land which was to be paid by the petitioner and in view of this small amount of Nazrana being paid by the petitioner, the possession of small portion of the land by the State Government for the construction of the road, which is again in the interest of the public at large, and the resumption of the land by the State is legal and valid stipulated under the conditions of the Patta, and the State is authorised to resume the land without payment of compensation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.” In the said case also the Court was dealing with a case where the petitioner, whose land initially allotted by way of ‘patta’ was taken over by the State for the purposes of construction of a road, was seeking a writ for initiation of the acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 5 Thus, in view of the undisputed position emerging from the record, the Court could not have given any direction to acquire the suit land. However plaintiff is given right to take recourse to such remedies as may be available under the Nautor Rules. Substantial question of law No. 1 is decided accordingly. Substantial question of law No. 2 is not required to be answered. The Courts below have committed material irregularities in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. The plaintiff had no right vis-à-vis State in the suit land and was not entitled to any compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act nor was he entitled to possession of the suit land as the same had been utilised by the State for a public purpose. The impugned judgments and decrees dated 2.2.1998 and 27.11.1998 passed by the Courts below are set aside. The plaintiff’s suit is accordingly dismissed and the appeal is allowed. However liberty granted to take recourse to other remedies, as are available under law. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. November 4, 2009 (PK)