Married daughter’s claim to inherited Nautor land cannot be rejected solely due to her marital status, Himachal Pradesh HC holds

Sh. Mina Ram, the petitioner’s father, applied for grant of land measuring 3 bighas 2 biswas in Village Navni, Tehsil Chopal, under the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968. The land was sanctioned in his favour on 25 August 1972, and possession was delivered to him; however, although a patta was prepared, it was not signed by the competent authority due to the negligence of the revenue officials.

After Mina Ram’s death on 25 November 1990, his widow, Smt. Sewati Devi, sought issuance of the patta. A patta was again prepared but remained unsigned. Sewati Devi died on 29 December 2012, leaving the petitioner as her sole legal heir.

The petitioner applied on 17 January 2023 for sanction and issuance of the patta in her favour. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chopal, verified the position and recommended her case. However, the Additional District Magistrate, Shimla, rejected the claim on 1 January 2024, relying on an administrative clarification dated 21 August 1980, under which married daughters were allegedly not entitled to have Nautor land sanctioned in their names.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution, asserting that she claimed the land as the Class-I legal heir of the original allottee and not as a fresh applicant for Nautor land.

Whether the petitioner, as the sole legal heir of the original allottee and his widow, could seek issuance of the patta in her favour notwithstanding her status as a married daughter

Whether the administrative clarification dated 21 August 1980, excluding married daughters from re-sanction of Nautor land, could override the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application on the sole ground of her being a married daughter was legally sustainable

The Court applied Rules 7 and 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968. Rule 7 prescribes eligibility and preference for grant of Nautor land, while Rule 8 restricts a son or daughter from applying during the lifetime of the father, subject to specified exceptions; neither provision expressly excludes a married daughter.

The Court held that administrative instructions cannot override statutory rules and relied on Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2025) 2 SCC 1, Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, (2024) 3 SCC 799, and Dr. Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2001) 5 SCC 482, for the principle that administrative instructions may supplement but cannot contradict or amend statutory rules.

The Court also relied on Kusum Nisha v. State of U.P., concerning the impermissibility of excluding married daughters on the basis of gender stereotypes, and noted the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, under which daughters possess equal succession and coparcenary rights.

A married daughter’s status alone cannot establish that she has severed ties with, or ceased to be entitled through, her parental family.

The Court found that Mina Ram had been granted the land in 1972 and that possession had continuously remained with Mina Ram, thereafter with Sewati Devi, and ultimately with the petitioner, without any resumption by the State.

The preparation of pattas in favour of Mina Ram and Sewati Devi, though not their formal execution, demonstrated that the petitioner was pursuing completion of an existing grant rather than seeking an independent allotment of Nautor land.

Rule 8 merely bars a son or daughter from applying while the father is alive; it does not disqualify a daughter after the father’s death, nor does it distinguish between married and unmarried daughters.

The administrative clarification excluding married daughters therefore impermissibly added a restriction not found in the statutory Rules and could not justify rejection of the petitioner’s claim.

The Court further held that reliance on marital status embodied an unconstitutional gender-based assumption that marriage severs a daughter’s relationship with her natal family, particularly where the petitioner was the sole legal heir and remained in cultivating possession.

It directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s application dated 17 January 2023 in light of the Court’s findings and, if she was otherwise eligible, to issue the order of sanction and patta in respect of the land comprised in old Khasra Nos. 2506/1/1 and 2713/2510/1, corresponding to new Khasra Nos. 666, 674 and 691/1, measuring 3 bighas 2 biswas, in her favour. The exercise was directed to be completed expeditiously, preferably within two months.