The automatic vesting of ownership rights in tenants under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and the rebuttal of presumption of truth attached to revenue entries in the absence of explanation for changes.

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

1. The present regular second appeal is maintained by the appellants, who were the defendants before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants”), challenging the judgment and decree, dated 26.07.2007, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 146-P/XIII of 2005, whereby the judgment and decree, dated 23.09.2005, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 96 of 2002, was set aside.

2. Tersely, the key facts, which are indispensable for determination and adjudication of the present appeal, are that the plaintiffs, maintained a suit for declaration to the effect that they, being non-occupancy tenants of the suit land, comprised in Khata No. 8 min, Khatauni No. 17, Khasra No. 451, measuring 0-61-25 hectares, situated at Mohal Rathan, Mouza Maniara, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter to be called as the “suit land”) by operation of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter to be called as “the Act”), have now become owners of the suit land and now in possession of the same, hence the order, dated 02.08.1976, passed by learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Palampur, implemented by Rapat No. 299, dated 14.05.1980, be declared illegal, null and void and also claimed a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land. The said relief has been claimed on the ground that the father of the plaintiffs was a tenant over the suit land and by operation of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act has become owner of the suit land. It was further been averred in the suit that the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit land, however the defendants, in connivance with the revenue staff, have procured entry of correction in their favour in respect of the land, measuring 0-34-60 hectares, out of the suit land, illegally and against the procedure, whereas the plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-interest were neither served nor associated in the proceedings of correction and all such proceedings were performed behind their back. It has been further alleged that on inquiry, it was found that no such missal or file pertaining to the correction application is on record and the entry of the remarks column, showing 0-34- 60 hectares out of the total land, in favour of the defendants is illegal, null and void. It has been further averred that cause of action accrued in the year, 1980, when the order of correction was passed without the knowledge of plaintiffs and in May, 2002, when the defendants started encroachment over the suit land.

3. The defendants, contested and resisted the suit of the plaintiffs by taking preliminary objections, viz., maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action, non-joinder of necessary parties, limitation, valuation, estoppels and locus standi. On merits, it has been averred that the entries showing the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, namely Prabhu and the plaintiffs as tenants of the defendants, qua the suit land, are wrong and incorrect, as neither they were inducted by the defendants as tenants, nor they remained in possession of the suit land and, so, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Palampur, has rightly passed the order on the basis of actual possession over the suit land. It has been further averred that the plaintiffs and their forefather were wrongly shown in possession of the suit land, upon which the defendants filed an application for correction of revenue entries before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Palampur, who after conducting the detailed inquiries, has rightly ordered for correction of the revenue entries and order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Palampur, is legal and the suit of the plaintiffs deserve dismissal.

4. The learned Trial Court on 20.07.2004 framed the following issues for determination and adjudication:

“1. Whether the pl