HP High Court protects married daughter's right to father's Nautor land

On August 25, 1972, Mr Mina Ram received three bigha two biswas of agricultural land in Shimla from the Himachal Pradesh Government to farm under the Nautor rules. A revenue assistant handed over this land, but due to unknown reasons, the revenue officials never signed the patta (official land revenue document) even though it was ready. Mina Ram did not push the issue at that time and went on with his life.

On November 25, 1990, when Mina Ram died, his wife Sewati Devi applied to get the patta but again the patta, despite being ready, was not signed. So the names of Sewati and Mina never got mutated in the land’s revenue records since the documents were never signed.

On December 29, 2012 Sewati Devi passed away leaving behind their only daughter, who again requested for the land’s patta. This time however, revenue officials flat out refused to give her the patta on the ground that married daughters can’t get land under Nautor rules. The daughter argued that she was not applying for a new land but applying for a patta for her late father’s land in her capacity as a class I legal heir under the Hindu Succession Act.

The daughter’s lawyer, Advocate Sunil Chauhan, filed a case and told the court that the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968, state that where the father is alive, his son or daughter, and where the husband is alive, his wife, shall not be eligible to apply for Nautor land, save and except if a son, daughter, or wife proves that the father or husband, as the case may be, has disinherited or separated him/her, or has renounced the world.

Chauhan said that there was nothing in the rules to suggest that married daughters cannot apply for grant of patta. He contended that even otherwise, it is well-settled that a married daughter, who is dependent upon her parents, cannot be deprived of her entitlement, if any, in her capacity of a Class-I legal heir of the original allottee (Mina Ram in this case).

Amitraj Kaushal, Advocate at Supreme Court of India, said to ET Wealth Online: The daughter succeeded because the Himachal Pradesh High Court found that there was no provision in the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules, 1968 that expressly disqualified a married daughter from succeeding to Nautor land as a legal heir. Rule 8 restricts a son or daughter from applying for Nautor land during the lifetime of the father, subject to specified exceptions, but it does not create a post-marriage disqualification.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court therefore held that the 1980 administrative clarification, which directed authorities not to allot Nautor land to married daughters even where they were Class-I legal heirs, could not override the statutory Rules.

Kuushal says that the Himachal Pradesh High Court also relied on the changed legal position recognising daughters' equal inheritance and coparcenary rights and the Supreme Court's reasoning that excluding married daughters merely because of their marital status rests on a gender stereotype. The rejection order was consequently quashed.

Kaushal explains that under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the maritial status of a Hindu daughter does not matter since the maritial status by itself cannot disqualify a Hindu daughter from inheriting her parents' property.

Kaushal says: "Where a Hindu dies intestate, succession is governed by the statutory scheme, and daughters who fall within the applicable Class-I category inherit along with other Class-I heirs, subject to the specific facts and nature of the property."

This means that if the Hindu daughter is the class-I surviving member of the family then merely because they are married it does not make them ineligible to get inheritance.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruling as discussed in this article highlights exactly this point but in the context of Nautor land. Kaushal says that this Himachal Pradesh High Court ruling also recognises the broader legal position that married Hindu daughters have have coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession Act.

This judgement came on September 14, 2026.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court, after studying Rules 7 and 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Land Rules. said that Rule 7 nowhere suggests that a married daughter is not entitled to apply for Nautor land.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that Rule 8 provides that where a father is alive, his son or daughter and where the husband is alive, his wife shall not be eligible to apply for Nautor land, except where such son, or daughter or wife proves that the father or husband, as the case may be, has disinherited or separated him/her, or has renounced the world, in that eventuality such son, daughter, or wife shall be eligible for Nautor land.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court pointed out that these rules clearly provide for a son or daughter to apply for Nautor land, but not during the lifetime of their father.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court said: “There is no specific rule under Nautor rules that debar a married daughter from claiming land under the said Rules.”

The Himachal Pradesh Government had issued a clarification circular on August 21, 1980, which suggested that the government had decided that a review should be conducted and sanctions be re-issued in the names of Category-I legal heirs as per the Hindu Succession Act. If the category -I legal heirs include married daughters, the land should not be allotted in their names, rather the rest of the legal heirs should be considered for sanction.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court was of the view that the government communication circular being an administrative clarification, cannot override the statutory rules which have the force of law.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court said that at present, under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a married daughter is also entitled to coparcenary rights. In this case, the daughter is not claiming Patta on account of her being the unmarried daughter of the late Mina Ram and Smt. Sewati. Rather, being a Class-I legal heir, she has prayed for issuance of the Patta in her favour.

The daughter’s Nautor application clearly reveals that she has nowhere stated that she may be granted land under Nautor Rules; rather her specific prayer is that she be allowed and granted 03-02 bighas of land located in Shimla district in terms of order of sanction and payment of compensation deposited by her mother, Smt. Sewati, in favour of the State of Himachal Pradesh, as per the documents attached in the interest of justice.

Thus, the high court allowed her appeal and requested that the authorities re-examine her case with the high court ruling in mind, preferably within two months from the date of the high court order.