No Specific Rule Debars Married Daughter From Claiming Land: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes Denial Of Nautor Patta To Class I Legal Heir
The Bench held that the Nautor Land Rules, 1968 contains no bar on married daughters claiming allotted land as legal heirs, relying on the Supreme Court's reasoning in Kusum Nisha to hold that excluding married daughters rests on an unconstitutional gender stereotype.
Justice Sandeep Sharma, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968 nowhere suggests that a married daughter is ineligible to claim allotted land, and has accordingly quashed an order denying patta to the sole surviving legal heir of an original Nautor grantee on the ground that she was a married daughter. The Court clarified that Rule 8 of the Rules restricts a son, daughter or wife from applying for Nautor land only during the subsistence of the father's or husband's lifetime, and does not otherwise bar a married daughter from claiming land as a legal heir once succession has opened.
Placing reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Kusum Nisha v. State of U.P. and Others, Civil Appeal No. 7667 of 2025, decided on June 02, 2023, the Court held that excluding married daughters from inheritance-based benefits rests on the constitutionally impermissible assumption that marriage severs a daughter's ties with her natal family, a presumption incompatible with the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
A Division Bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma observed, “Though, this Court is of the view that aforesaid communication, being an administrative clarification, cannot override the statutory rules which have the force of law, but even otherwise, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that subsequent to the issuance of aforesaid instructions, law has undergone a sea change. At present, as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, married daughter is also entitled to coparcenary rights. Moreover, in the case at hand, this Court finds it necessary to clarify that petitioner herein is not claiming Patta on account of her being unmarried daughter of late Sh. Mina Ram and Smt. Sewati, rather she being Class-I legal heir of the aforesaid persons, prayed for issuance of Patta in her favour”.
Advocate Sunil Chauhan appeared for the petitioner and Rajan Kahol, Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner’s father was granted 3 bighas 2 biswas under the Nautor Rules in 1972 and remained in cultivating possession until his death in 1990, though the patta was never signed. His widow later sought a patta in her name, but the fresh patta also remained unsigned. After her death in 2012, the petitioner, their sole surviving legal heir, applied afresh in January 2023. Despite the SDM’s recommendation, the ADM rejected her claim on January 01, 2024, relying on a 1980 clarification barring allotment to married daughters.
The petitioner contended that she claimed as a Class-I legal heir to land already sanctioned and possessed by her parents, not as an unmarried daughter, and that an administrative instruction could not override statutory eligibility.
The Court held that the 1980 clarification, being merely administrative, could not supersede the statutory Rules, and further observed that subsequent developments in the law, including the recognition of coparcenary rights for married daughters under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, reinforced the untenability of the exclusion.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the order dated January 01, 2024 and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's application afresh and, if otherwise found eligible, issue the sanction and patta within two months.
Cause Title: Shanti v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:39123)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Sunil Chauhan, Advocate.
Respondent: Rajan Kahol, Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, Ravi Chauhan, Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.