The Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that lawful allotment of land under the Natour Rules, 1968 cannot be disregarded in eviction proceedings under the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971. Where the state admits the original allotment to a predecessor and the land in dispute is derived from that allotment, subsequent claims of unauthorized occupation are legally unsustainable.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from an eviction order passed by Respondent No.2, the Collector-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Rohru, on 18.03.2016, under the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971. The order directed the eviction of petitioner Sohan Lal from land comprised in Khasra Nos.124 and 125, measuring 1-22-02 hectares, on the ground that he was in unauthorized occupation.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is the son of the late Sh. Fhagnu Ram, who applied for land under the Natour Scheme in 1973.
- Under the Natour Rules, 1968, Sh. Fhagnu Ram was sanctioned 13 Bighas and 11 Biswas of land in old Khasra No.147/1, located at Mohal Khalai, Sub-Tehsil Tikkar, District Shimla.
- He paid a nazarana of Rs.677-50 paise for the grant of this natour land.
- The land in dispute - Khasra Nos.124 and 125, measuring 1-22-02 hectares - was carved out from the original old Khasra No.147/1.
- The petitioner has been in continuous possession of the land since the allotment to his father.
- In the eviction proceedings, the petitioner admitted to occupying the land but asserted that the possession was inherited from his father and was lawful.
- The respondents, in their written reply, admitted all these facts: the original allotment, payment of nazarana, and the derivation of the disputed land from the sanctioned plot.
Procedural History
- 1973: Sh. Fhagnu Ram applied for and was granted natour land under the Natour Rules, 1968.
- 18.03.2016: Eviction order passed by Collector-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Rohru, under the H.P. Public Premises Act.
- 2016: Writ Petition (CWP No.2999 of 2016) filed before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh challenging the eviction order.
- 08.05.2026: Hearing concluded with consent of parties; judgment delivered.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Contended that he is not an encroacher but a lawful successor to land lawfully allotted to his father under the Natour Rules, 1968. The admission of occupation was not an admission of illegality, but a factual acknowledgment of possession.
Respondents: Initially issued the eviction order relying on the petitioner’s admission of possession. However, in their written reply, they admitted the original lawful allotment to the petitioner’s father and confirmed that the disputed land was carved out from the sanctioned plot.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the eviction order dated 18.03.2016 and a declaration that his possession of Khasra Nos.124 and 125 is lawful and protected under the Natour Rules, 1968.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether possession of land derived from a lawfully granted natour allotment under the Natour Rules, 1968 can be treated as unauthorized occupation warranting eviction under the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971, when the state itself admits the original grant.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the state cannot simultaneously admit the lawful origin of possession and then invoke the Eviction Act to remove the occupant. The Natour Rules, 1968, being a specific statutory scheme for land allotment to eligible persons, override general provisions of the Eviction Act. The petitioner, as the legal heir, inherited the lawful right to possession. Reliance was placed on the principle that a party cannot take a contradictory position in judicial proceedings.
For the Respondent
The respondents did not contest the factual admissions made in their reply. Their counsel conceded that the land was originally allotted under the Natour Rules and that the disputed area was carved out from the sanctioned plot. No substantive legal argument was advanced to justify the eviction order in light of these admissions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the respondents’ reply constituted a clear and unambiguous admission of the lawful origin of the petitioner’s possession. The land in question was not acquired through encroachment but was derived from a sanctioned natour allotment made in 1973. The Court emphasized that the Eviction Act applies only to unauthorized occupation, and where the state itself acknowledges the legitimacy of the original grant, no basis exists for invoking the Act.
"The respondents have admitted that the land comprised in Khasra Nos.124 & 125... was carved out from old Khasra No.147/1, which was sanctioned in favour of the father of the petitioner."
The Court held that the petitioner’s admission of possession did not equate to an admission of illegality. The nature of possession must be judged by its origin, not merely by its existence. The state’s own admission destroyed the foundation of the eviction order. The Court further noted that the Natour Rules, 1968, were enacted to provide land to eligible persons, and the rights conferred under them are not extinguished by subsequent administrative re-survey or re-numbering of land parcels.
The Court rejected the notion that the petitioner’s continued possession, even without a fresh allotment, rendered it unlawful. In the absence of any cancellation, revocation, or forfeiture of the original grant, the rights of the allottee and his successors remain intact.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The eviction order dated 18.03.2016 is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to continue in possession of Khasra Nos.124 and 125, measuring 1-22-02 hectares, as the lawful successor to the natour land originally allotted to his father under the Natour Rules, 1968. The pending miscellaneous application is disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Lawful Allotment Overrides General Eviction Powers
- Practitioners must challenge eviction orders under the H.P. Public Premises Act where the land was originally granted under a specific statutory scheme like the Natour Rules.
- The burden shifts to the state to prove cancellation or forfeiture of the original grant; mere possession is not evidence of encroachment.
- Administrative re-survey or re-numbering of land (e.g., old Khasra to new Khasra) does not invalidate the original allotment.
State Admissions Are Binding in Judicial Proceedings
- When the state admits the lawful origin of possession in its written reply, it cannot later rely on the same facts to justify eviction.
- Courts will not permit the state to take contradictory positions - this violates the doctrine of estoppel and good faith in public law.
- Legal notices and pleadings must be scrutinized for admissions that can be leveraged to defeat eviction claims.
Succession Rights in Statutorily Allotted Land Are Protected
- Heirs of natour land allottees inherit the same rights as the original allottee, unless explicitly revoked.
- No fresh allotment is required for succession; the original grant continues to bind the state.
- Claims of unauthorized occupation must be evaluated against the historical record of statutory allotment, not merely current administrative records.
