Revenue records do not confer title; civil courts lack jurisdiction over revenue matters, affirming the authority of revenue officials in correcting entries and ejecting trespassers.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2022, passed by learned Additional District Judge (II), Shimla, District Shimla H.P. vide which, the appeal filed by the present appellant (plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a Civil Suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land mentioned in para 1 of the plaint, order dated 25.07.2006 passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh in Revision Petition No. 163/2002, Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, in Appeal No. 64/2001 and the Settlement Officer, Shimla in case No. 58/98, dated 03.05.2000 are illegal, wrong and contrary to the provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act. The revenue entries regarding Khasra Nos. 27, 29, 30 and 32 corrected by the Revenue Authorities based on the orders are illegal, wrong and not binding on the right, title and interest of the plaintiff. A consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant no.1 from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land or any part thereof was also sought.

3. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is an owner in possession of the suit land. He purchased the suit land in the year 1973-74. He built a house over Khasra No. 640/27 min and planted an orchard. Settlement operation was carried out in the areas of Mauza Shainal where the suit land is located. No person raised any dispute regarding the measurement and preparation of records of rights of the suit land during the settlement operation. Original defendant no.2 filed an application before the Settlement Officer, Shimla on 09.03.1998 asserting that the plaintiff had closed the passage leading to his (defendant No.2) land. The Settlement Officer entertained the application of defendant no.2, without jurisdiction. The matter regarding the obstruction of the passage falls within the purview of the Civil Court. The Settlement Officer called a report from the field agencies and directed the correction of the revenue entries vide order dated 03.05.2000. The order passed by the Settlement Officer was without jurisdiction and against the provisions of the statute. The nature of the classification of land bearing Khasra nos. 27, 29, 30 and 32 was also changed, contrary to the spot position. No notice was served upon the plaintiff before carrying out the correction. The Settlement Officer also ordered the ejectment of the plaintiff from the land bearing Khasra Nos.27, 29, 30 and 32 measuring 0-03-60 hectares and directed the Assistant Collector (Rural) Shimla, to remove the encroachment. The Settlement Officer had no jurisdiction to order the ejectment of the plaintiff as the ejectment can only be ordered by following the due procedure prescribed under the H.P. Land Revenue Act. A question of title was raised before the Settlement Officer, which was required to be referred to the Civil Court. This order was unsuccessfully assailed in appeal and revision. The defendants are trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and building owned and possessed by him. The claim of the villagers of Mauja Sanan regarding the existence of the public path through the land of the plaintiff was rejected in proceedings under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. by the learned SDM (Rural), Shimla. These orders were not considered. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

4. The suit was opposed by defendant no. 1 by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, the suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, the suit having not been properly valued for Court fee and jurisdiction and the suit being liable to be dismissed for want of n