The attestation of mutation in favor of non-occupancy tenant under Section 104(3) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act is mandatory and affects the rights of a landowner, and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute if the statutory authorities did not act in conformity with judicial procedure or if the provisions of the Act were not complied with.

Kuldip Singh, J.

1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.1997 passed by learned District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No. 3/1992, confirming judgment, decree dated 5.8.1991 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No. II, Amb in case No. 1041 of 1984.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 Udham Singh filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of land measuring 5 Kanals 14 Marlas to the extent of 2/3rd share out of land measuring 8'Kanals 11 Marlas, comprised in khewat No. 301, khatauni No. 655 and Khasra Nos. 1095 and 1113 vide jamabandi 1979-80, village Gagret, Tehsil Amb, District Una, the revenue entries and mutation No. 3531 showing Prem Singh as owner in possession of land measuring 2 Kanals 17 Marlas to the extent of 1/3rd share out of land measuring 8 Kanals 11 Marlas are wrong and illegal having no effect on the rights of respondent No. 1. In the suit, consequential relief of permanent injunction from taking forcible possession of the suit land was also prayed with alternative relief of possession.

3. The respondent No. 1 further pleaded that suit land measuring 8 Kanals 11 Marlas was jointly owned and possessed by him and respondents Gurbachan Singh as well as Puran Singh. He having 2/3rd share, Gurbachan Singh and Puran Singh 1/3rd share in the suit land. In the same ratio the suit land was earlier owned by the father of respondent No. 1 and the father of Gurbachan Singh as well as Puran Singh as tenants-at-will. The case of respondent No. 1 is that after the death of his father Meghoo, he succeeded to the tenancy of his father and came in possession to the extent of 2/3rd share and on coming into force H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short, the Act), he has become owner in possession of 2/3rd share equivalent to 5 Kanals 14 Marlas out of 8 Kanals 11 Marlas. Gurbachan Singh and Prem Singh have succeeded their father Dheru alias Piaru to the extent of 1/3rd share and they are owners in possession, measuring 2 Kanals 13 Marlas out of 8 Kanals 11 Marlas of the suit land. It has been pleaded that Prem Singh had no right, title in the suit land. Prem Singh illegally got changed the revenue entries of the suit land in his favour to the extent of 1/3rd share i.e. 2 Kanals 17 Marlas out of 8 Kanals 11 Marlas as tenant-at-will and on the basis of illegal entries further succeeded in sanctioning mutation No. 3531 of proprietary rights under Section 104 (3) of the Act in his favour to the extent of 1/3rd share at the back of respondent No. 1 Udham Singh. The mutation No. 3531 in favour of Prem Singh is wrong and illegal.

4. Prem Singh died and his legal representatives were brought on record, who contested the suit by filing written statement. They took preliminary objections of maintainability, limitation, estoppel, nonjoinder of necessary parties, jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. On merits, their pleaded case is that their predecessor Prem Singh and Udham Singh were uterine brothers. Prem Singh was brought up by Meghoo as his son, who treated him as his son. Meghoo was in possession of the suit land as tenant at will on payment of rent and after his death Udham Singh and their predecessor Prem Singh entered in possession in the same capacity and now appellants No. 1 to 6 are in possession alongwith respondent No. 1 of the suit land. Prem Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of appellants No. 1 to 6 entered in possession of the suit land qua his share as tenant- at-will on payment of rent under Lachhman Dass, who was in hissedari possession of the suit land. Prem Singh was adopted son of Meghoo. On coming into force of the Act, respondent No. 1 and Prem Singh became owners as the conferment of proprietary rights is automatic under the Act. After the death of Prem Singh, appellants No. 1 to 6 are in possession of the suit land qua the share of Prem Singh. The proprietary rights were conferred in presence of the parties. The respon