Per Surinder Singh, J:- The petitioner herein, has filed two civil writ petition Nos. 1111 of 2005 and 1112 of 2005 against the respondents, to quash the orders dated September 16, 2005 (Annexure-P4) in both the petitions, passed by the Financial Commissioner in Revenue Revision Nos. 36 of 2002 and 37 of 2002.

2. Since the facts of both the petitions are identical, therefore, taken up together for decision. The brief facts are as under:

3. The private respondents are admittedly the owners of the land in dispute and the petitioner has been recorded as non-occupancy tenant in the revenue record. The Assistant Collector II Grade had attested both the mutation Nos 2485 (CWP No. 1111 of 2005) and 2428 (in CWP No. 1112 of 2005) of mauza Nangal Kalan Sub Tehsil Haroli, District Una, H.P. in favour of the petitioner, conferring the proprietary rights under Section 104 (3) of the Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as The Act), on 9.6.1989 and 21.1.1989, respectively.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the respondents No.2 to 4 and 8 and also one Shri Mangat Ram had filed appeals, before the Sub Divisional Collector, Una who upheld the orders of the Assistant Collector II Grade which were further challenged in appeals, before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), by the aforesaid persons and other co-owners which were also dismissed. Ultimately, the land owners assailed the findings of the revenue Courts below in revision before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner vide his single order dated 16.9.2005 (Annexure-P4) passed in revenue revision Nos. 36 and 27 of 2002, set aside the orders of the revenue Courts aforesaid and in his order he clarified that his order shall not be a bar upon the parties to approach the Land Reforms Officer concerned to get the status of petitioner herein, adjudicated upon.

5.Having felt aggrieved, the petitioner herein, has assailed the impugned orders Annexure-P4 passed by the Financial Commissioner by filing these separate writ petitions, as being factually and legally incorrect and alleged that the Financial Commissioner has taken a parochial approach to rule 28 of the "H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975", (hereinafter referred as "the rules") and that the conferment of proprietary rights on the petitioner, being non-occupancy tenant was automatic. The harmonious reading of rules 27 and 28 clearly envisaged that the proprietary rights with respect to the land in dispute stand conferred on the tenants as per the provisions of Section 104 (3) of the Act. Thus, there was no occasion for the Financial Commissioner to read the provisions of rule 28 in a whimsical manner. Precisely, it is contended that there was misapplication of mind to the Act and the rules, by the Financial Commissioner which culminated into passing of the wrong orders and the law did not require the tenant to approach the Land Reforms officer to get his status adjudicated upon, when his status stood already recorded in the Jamabandi as a non-occupancy tenant. In case of any dispute, it was for the landowners to approach the right Forum and the statutory onus is on them to prove that the petitioner was not a tenant. Therefore, the findings of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) were incorrect, hence sought the indulgence of this Court.

6. The private respondents have filed the reply wherein they have denied the status of the petitioner as a non-occupancy tenant. They pleaded that the name of the petitioners was incorporated in collusion with the revenue staff and he was never their tenant as alleged. Further, that the Assistant Collector II grade had wrongly and illegally attested the mutation in fawour of the petitioner without any notice to them. Thus they were condemned upheard. It is also contended that Smt. Kaushalaya Devi is a widow and there is a statutory bar to confer the proprietary right qua her share, therefore, the attestation of mutations were incorrect, wit