The conferment of proprietary rights under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act is automatic and by operation of law.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Having suffered by two concurrent judgments and decrees, the defendants are in second appeal.

2. The appeal was admitted on 27.08.2009, on following substantial questions of law:-

"1. Whether proprietary rights under H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act can be conferred by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade?

2. Whether the Ard Salidaran (Manager) has right to induct tenant over the suit land?

3. When the order of mutation passed by the Revenue Officer is under challenge and the appeal is pending before the Appellate Revenue Court, can the same be declared legal and valid by the Civil Court during the pendency of the appeal?"

The parties hereinafter are being referred as they were before learned trial Court.

3. Brief facts for adjudication of the appeal may be noticed hereinafter:-

3(i). Jamabandi for the year 1970-71 (Ext.D-4), recorded plaintiff's possession over the suit land as non-occupancy tenant, on payment of 1/3rd of the produce under Sh. Lal Chand & Sohan Lal-the Ard Salidarans (Managers). Shri Kishore Chand, Madan Lal etc. were recorded as owners of the suit land.

3(ii). In Jamabandi for the year 1992-93 (Ext.P-2), suit land was recorded in the ownership of Kishori Lal and others. Plaintiff was recorded as non-occupancy tenant on payment of 1/4th of produce under Ajmer Singh etc.- Ard Salidaran (Managers).

3(iii). On 18.01.1996, mutation No.44 (Ext.P-1) was attested, conferring proprietary rights over the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. The attestation thereof records the fact that owners of the suit land were not present despite repeated opportunities granted to them.

3(iv). The conferment of proprietary rights on the plaintiff was incorporated in the remarks column of Jamabandi for the year 1992-93. In Jamabandi for the year 1997-98 (Ext.D-2), name of the plaintiff thereafter was recorded as owner in possession over the suit land measuring 0-21-42 hectares, comprised in Khasra No.370, Mohal Nathoon, Mauja Garli, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P.

3(v). Alleging interference over the suit land by the defendants, suit was filed by the plaintiff on 28.05.1999, seeking permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in his exclusive ownership and possession over the suit land or in the alternative, in case, defendants forcibly occupy any portion of the suit land during the pendency of the suit, then a decree for possession was also prayed for.

3(vi). Written statement was filed by the defendants contending that mutation No.44 could not be attested in favour of plaintiff by Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade; plaintiff was not in possession over the suit land rather defendants were in possession of suit land as Ard Salidarans( (Managers) and prior to this, their predecessor Duni Chand was in possession over the suit land as Ard Salidaran (Manager); therefore, decree for permanent prohibitory injunction could not be granted in favour of plaintiff.

3(vii). Defendants also filed their counter claim, challenging the conferment of proprietary rights in favour of the plaintiff under mutation No.44, dated 18.01.1996, attested under the Provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. After the filing of the civil suit, the defendants challenged mutation No.44 before the Revenue Courts. Appeal was preferred by them under Section 14 of H.P. Land Revenue Act before learned Collector. All the original owners of the suit land, i.e. Sh. Jadish Chand, Madan Lal etc. were impleaded as respondents in this appeal alongwith the present plaintiff.

3(viii). The mutation was challenged on the ground:- firstly that the same was sanctioned by Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, who was not competent to sanction it and secondly that plaintiff was not the tenant under the original owners but he was inducted as tenant as by Ard Salidaran (Manager), therefore, proprietary rights over the suit land could not be conferred upon him. Learned Collector vide order dated 24.09.2001 (Ext.P-6) dismissed the appeal.