IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No. 157/1999 Decided on:6.5.2009 Tarsem Devi. …Appellant. Versus Shakti Chand and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No1. For the appellant : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.2.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Una in civil appeal No.21/1992. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiffs’ for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration before the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Amb to the effect that they continued in possession of the land previously as tenants-at-will comprised in Khasra No. 5866 measuring 2-9 kanals situated in village Ambota, Tehsil Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh and after the enactment of the Himachal 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 they became owners. The appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’ for convenience sake) had no right, title or interest in the suit property and during consolidation, she got the entry changed in the revenue record without any basis, and therefore, entry showing self possession in favour of the defendant is wrong and void. The suit was contested by the defendant. The learned trial court decreed the suit on 4.1.1992. The defendant preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge. The appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 1.2.1999. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. “Whether the suit as framed is within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court? 2. Whether the suit as framed is within time?” Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are not sustainable. He then argued that the civil court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis between the parties. He lastly contended that the suit was barred by limitation. Mr. Rajnish K. Lal, Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Since both the substantial questions of law are inter-linked and inter connected, therefore, the same are being taken up together for determination to avoid repetition of discussion of the evidence. A bare perusal of copies of Jamabanids Ex.P-1 to P-7 reveals that the plaintiffs were recorded in possession as tenants-at-will. It was for the 3 first time that entry was changed vide Ex.P-9 in the year 1980 on the basis of the order dated 2.5.1979 passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. The order passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade is Ex.D-1. The proprietary rights were conferred upon the plaintiffs after the commencement of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975 framed thereunder. The jurisdiction to make an order in respect of tenancy lies with the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. Ex.D-1 has been passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. He had no jurisdiction to do so. The change effected in Ex.P-10 i.e. jamabandi for the year 1980-81 was unlawful. The plaintiffs had never relinquished the tenancy as claimed by the appellant. Moreover, the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade while passing order dated 2.5.1979 had not heard the plaintiffs. It is not borne out from the record that notice was ever issued to the plaintiffs by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. The necessary orders qua the conferment of the proprietary rights could only be passed by the Land Reforms Officer as per the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and rule 29 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975. The status of the plaintiffs recorded as owners could not be destroyed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. There is ample evidence on record to prove that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property initially as tenants-at-will and thereafter as owners. The civil court had the necessary jurisdiction for correction of entry under section 37 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Reforms Act, 1953, which has been wrongly recorded on the basis of order dated 2.5.1979 passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. Mr. Ramakant Sharma has also argued that the suit was not within limitation. The plaintiffs were threatened as per the statement of the 4 plaintiffs by the defendant in the month of November, 1998. The suit was filed in the same month. Accordingly, the same is within limitation. The defendant has not taken the ground of limitation in the appeal preferred before the learned District Judge. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law involved in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 6.5. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*