The central legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain suits challenging orders passed under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, and the validity of such orders.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2010 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, in Civil Appeal No.31/2009.

2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’ for convenience sake) instituted a suit for declaration alongwith consequential relief of injunction against the appellants-defendants and proforma defendants (hereinafter referred to as “defendants” and “proforma defendants”, respectively for sake of convenience) stating therein that he was owner in possession of the land, as detailed in the plaint. He has challenged the mutation No. 1376 dated 30.12.1976 attested on the basis of order of Land Reforms Officer, Bhatiyat being void. He has alleged that Amar Singh son of Sh. Nar Singh and Tej Singh son of Sh. Labh Singh were the owners of the suit land and Sadho, the father of plaintiff, was their tenant. He has become owner in possession of the suit land by operation of law. Defendant No.1, namely, Janam Singh, has retired as Panchayat Inspector, Chowari and defendant No.2, namely, Raj Singh has retired as Reader to the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba. According to the plaintiff, defendants in connivance with the revenue official got mutation No. 1376 attested behind his back on the basis of order dated 12.2.1976, without summoning the plaintiff and without following the due procedure. According to him, defendants No.1 and 2 were recorded owners of 1/4th share and 1/20th share, respectively in the revenue record. His father died in the year 1969, however, he was treated alive in the order dated 12.2.1976. In the month of May, 2003, defendant No.1 threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land on the basis of wrong revenue entries.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants. On merits, it was stated that Sadho was tenant in the year 1960-61 and the suit land was resumed on the basis of order passed by the Land Reforms Officer and two mutations as envisaged under rule 25 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules were attested. Defendant No.1 has admitted that he retired as Panchayat Inspector. According to the defendants, they were in possession of the suit land.

4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff and he reiterated the averments contained in the plaint. Trial court framed issues on 22.8.2005. Learned trial court decreed the suit on 30.9.2009. Contesting defendants, namely, Janam Singh and Raj Singh preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba. He dismissed the same on 29.10.2010. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal.

5. Notices were issued to the respondents. Contesting respondent No.1 is represented by Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate. Other respondents were duly served, but neither they are present in person nor any Advocate has appeared on their behalf.

6. Mr. Anand Sharma on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed alongwith the memorandum of appeal has vehemently argued that his clients have clearly proved their ownership and possession of the suit land on the basis of Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-10 to Ex.D-13. According to him, the civil court had no jurisdiction since the orders were passed by the Land Reforms Officer under the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for brevity sake). He then contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. According to him, the orders passed by the Land Reforms Officer are in conformity with law.

7. Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Ms. Archana Dutt has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record as well as pleadings carefully.

9. Plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. According to him, the suit land was in possessio