The Civil Court has jurisdiction to test the validity of orders made under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, and the principle of audi alteram partem applies to mutation recordings.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The plaintiffs' suit for rendition of a decree, for permanent prohibitory injunction besides for rendition of a decree, for declaration, stood dismissed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, by the plaintiffs, the latter Court allowed his appeal besides obviously reversed the trial Court's judgment and decree.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit against the defendants for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, with assertions that the land comprised in Khewat No.58, Khatauni No.108, Khasra No.685, 686, measuring 0-05-56 hects, situated in mohal Thear, Mouza Khaniara, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. is owned and possessed by them and mutation No.316, attested on 9.6.1999 regarding the suit land in favour of the defendant is illegal, null and void and the plaintiffs are not bound by the same and in the alternative the plaintiffs have sought a decree for possession, if the plaintiff are not found to be in possession of the suit land and they are dispossessed from the suit land or any part thereof during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they are owners of the suit land. During the settlement operation in the year 1973 to 1976, the suit land was described as Khasra No.369 and the plaintiffs were recorded as owners as is evident from the jamabandi for the year 1965-66 and 1960-61. The defendant in collusion with the revenue staff got themselves recorded in possession over the suit land without knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs as tenant at will, in fact the latest revenue entries qua the possession of the defendant is a mere paper entry as the defendant was never inducted as tenant over the suit land. The entry qua the possession of the suit land during the settlement operation or earlier was recorded behind the back of the plaintiffs. The prescribed procedure has been laid down under the law, for the change of the revenue entry and the same has not been followed. On the basis of mutation and other revenue entries, the defendant started threatening to take forcible possession of the suit land and therefore, the plaintiff are left with no alternative but to institute the present suit.

3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections of maintainability, limitation, cause of action, jurisdiction, estoppel etc. On merits, the defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs are not entered as owner in the revenue record for the year 1991-92, as per remarks column in red ink in the jamabandi for the year 1991-92, the defendant has been conferred with the ownership rights vide mutation No.316 under the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and therefore, the defendant after acquiring the proprietary rights under the law is a lawful owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs have not challenged the mutation before the competent Appellate Court as provided under the law. The defendant also pleaded that during the settlement operation which took place in the year 1973 to 1976, the suit land was shown as Khasra No.369 and the plaintiffs were not shown as owner in possession of the suit land in the jamabandi for the year 1965-66 and 1960-61 and at that time Shri Chhaju Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs has been shown as owner of the suit land and the defendant in possession as Gair Marushi tenant on payment of Gala Batai. The defendant was inducted as tenant by deceased Chhaju Ram, in the year 1961-62 on payment of Gala Batai. The defendant was paying Galla Batai to Sh. Chhaju Ram till his death. The defendant was rightly entered as tenant under the landowner in the revenue papers during the settlement operation and the subsequent entries in the revenue record continued as per the factual position on the spot and therefore, the suit filed by the a