IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No.9 of 2009. Date of Decision: 04.05.2009 Durga Singh …Appellant. Versus. State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Appellant (s): Mr.Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr.R.M. Bisht, Dy.A.G. for respondent No.1. Mr.G.R.Palsra, counsel for respondents 2 to 6. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) The appellant who was the writ petitioner had filed a civil suit No.69 of 1999 claiming an easementary right of irrigating his land from the water source in question. He also sought a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering in his rights. One of the issues which was framed was whether the order of the ADM, Mandi directing that the land of the defendant in khasra No.685 be recorded as irrigated land is null and void. This issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff. However, it was held that the plaintiff himself had no right to get his land irrigated from the aforesaid water source and therefore his suit was dismissed. Since the 2 suit was dismissed the defendants had no right to challenge the findings on issue No.3. Under Section 38 of the Land Revenue Act, the revenue authority is bound to make entries in the revenue record as per the decree or order of the Court. The finding on a particular issue cannot be equated with a decree or order of the Court. The petitioner did not, in his application filed before the revenue authorities, challenge the correctness of the entries on any other ground but only prayed that issue No.3 has been decided in his favour, the entry in favour of the defendants be corrected. It is pertinent to mention that issue No.3 was decided in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the ADM has no jurisdiction to decide the matter on merits. In fact the Civil Court itself held that it was only the Civil court which could have decided this issue. No challenge to the right of the defendants to get their land irrigated from the said water source was ever laid in any civil suit. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition by holding that the revenue authorities were not bound by the findings recorded by the learned civil Court while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. There is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. May 4, 2009 ( V.K. Ahuja ), PV. Judge.