The conferment of proprietary rights under tenancy law occurs automatically upon notification issuance.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2009, decided on 20.10.2010, whereby the learned First Appellate Court has affirmed the findings of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Court No.2, Amb, District Una, in Civil Suit No. 196 of 2000 dated 28.04.2009.

2. The dispute between the parties is with regard to land bearing Khewat No. 273, Khatauni Nos. 671 and 672 Khasra Nos. 3126, 3342, 3345, 3127, 3343, 3344 and 3349, Kittas 7, total measuring 1-59-80 hectares as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95 situated in UP Mohal Ram Nagar (Nakroh), Tehsil - Amb, District Una, H.P.

3. The case of the appellants is that as per Missal Hakiyat Istemal for the year 1966-1967, the suit land was denoted by Khewat No.2 min, Khatauni No.31, Khasra Nos. 2453, 2458 and 2459. The land measured 41.19 Kanals. The same was owned and possessed by their predecessor - in - interest and the forefathers of the proforma respondents. The respondents, according to the appellants had nothing to do with the land in dispute. The predecessor - in - interest of the respondents, according to the appellants, had never been inducted as tenant(s) over suit land. There existed no relationship of landlord(s) and tenant (s) between the appellants, proforma respondents and the respondents or their ancestors. According to the appellants, one Sh. Jalha (predecessor - in - interest of the respondents) had in connivance with the Revenue Officers wrongly got his name incorporated in the revenue record as a non - occupancy tenant in / over the suit land. The further grievance of the appellants is that late Sh. Lachhman Dass (son of deceased Sh. Jalha) and Sh. Nanak Chand (respondent No.2) on the basis of wrong and illegal entries had got mutation No. 3166 dated 27.09.1983 sanctioned in their favour, whereby proprietary rights had been conferred on them.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the present appellants had sought a decree of declaration to the effect that the appellants along with with proforma respondents are owners in possession of the suit land and entries in the name of respondents reflecting them to be non - occupancy tenant(s) and subsequent conferment of proprietary rights by virtue of mutation No. 3166 dated 27.09.1983 be set - aside being wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction. Besides aforesaid a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner in the suit land was also sought. In the alternative, a decree for possession was also asked for.

5. On notice, since proforma respondents did not appear in the Trial Court despite being served they were proceeded against ex parte on 31st October, 2000.

6. The contesting respondents Nos.1 and 2 had filed their written statement. On merits, it was admitted that the appellants and the proforma respondents were the owners of the suit land. According to the contesting respondents, the suit land was in the occupation of their predecessor - in - interest of Sh. Palli. In the aforesaid backdrop, the wrong revenue entires existing in favour of the appellants and the proforma respondents, whereby they were shown to be owners with possession of the suit land were got corrected vide Rapat No. 121 dated 23.10.1968. The aforesaid correction was made in favour of Sh. Jalha and Munshi, Sons of Sh. Palli after a spot inspection. According to the contesting respondents, the appellants and the proforma respondents as well as their forefathers had been admitting Sh. Palli and after his demise Sh. Jalha and Sh. M