The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate matters regarding tenancy and proprietary rights under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, and the procedural requirements and principles of natural justice in making changes to revenue entries.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sharma, J.

This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Una, dated 5.5.2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 68 of 2002.

2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, for the convenience sake), filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs alongwith proforma defendants are owner-in-possession to the extent of 34749 shares and tenant in possession to the extent of 3395 shares under defendant No. 2 over the land measuring 0-80-15 hectares, comprised in Khewat No. 238, Khatauni No. 401, Khasra Nos. 644 and 645 as per Misal Haquiat Settlement for the year 1986-87 and the change of the revenue entries in the name of defendant No. 1 as non-occupancy tenant and subsequent order dated 10.6.1985 of Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Amb sanctioning mutation No. 971 of proprietary rights in the name of defendant No. 1, were absolutely wrong, false, baseless, illegal and without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and Rules with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from interfering in any manner or raising any sort of construction and cutting trees from the suit land.

3. The suit land was coming in possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendant Nos. 3 to 5 since the time of ancestors as non-occupancy tenants under Shri Bhagat Singh etc. owners on payment of rent and after coming into force of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the plaintiff had become owner to the extent of 34749 shares and tenant in respect of 3395 shares under the defendant No. 2 who is widow. Earlier the old Khasra No. of the suit land was 284 which was converted into new Khasra No. 293 during consolidation and thereafter the suit land was denoted by Khasra No. 644 and 645 during settlement operation. The defendant No. 1 with the connivance of the revenue staff got changed the entries of the suit land in his name as nonoccupancy tenant and also got sanctioned mutation No. 971 of proprietary rights from Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Amb. On 10.6.1985.

4. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1, namely Ram Lok. He filed the written statement. According to him, the suit land was coming in his possession as non-occupancy tenant on payment of rent to the owners since June, 1970 and now under the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the defendant has become owner vide mutation No. 971 dated 10.6.1985. The defendant Nos. 2 to 5 despite service did not appear and they were proceeded ex-parte in the trial Court.

5. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendant. The issues were framed by the learned Sub Judge (Ist Class), Amb. The learned Sub Judge (Ist Class), Amb, decreed the suit on 27.6.2002. The defendant Ram Lok filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.6.2002 before the learned District Judge, Una. The learned District Judge, Una, dismissed the same on 5.5.2004. Hence, this regular second appeal.

6. The regular second appeal was admitted by this Court on 16.3.2005 on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit as framed for correction of entries and setting aside the order confirming the ownership rights on the appellant under the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act?

2. Whether on a proper construction of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the onus to disprove the tenancy of the appellant which lay on the plaintiff was discharged and the court below mis-directed in directing the appellant to establish his tenancy?

3. Whether the judgment of the Court below is vitiated as the suit had abated because of the death of defendant No. 3 Prabhu and which question of abatement could only be decided by the trial Court where abatement had occurred?”

7. Mr. Rajnish K.