IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.124 of 1998 Date of decision : June 24, 2010 Hari Ram (dead) through LRs …Appellant. Versus Gian Chand and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) This Regular Second Appeal by the plaintiff- appellant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3rd November, 1997, of learned District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby dismissing plaintiff’s appeal, trial Court’s judgment and decree dated 30th September, 1988, dismissing plaintiff’s suit for possession of suit property, by redemption of mortgage, has been upheld. 2. Plaintiff claiming himself to be the owner of the suit property, filed a suit for possession, alleging that it had been mortgaged by him with Paras Ram, predecessor of the defendants-respondents, for a sum of Rs.500/-, in the year 1960, through a writing dated 14th May, 1990. It was stated that the mortgage was with possession and that the defendants had derived benefit of more than double the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… amount of mortgage debt and, therefore, they were liable to hand over the possession, without being paid anything, on account of mortgage debt. 3. Defendants-respondents contested the suit. They denied that any mortgage had been created by the plaintiff-appellant. It was stated that their predecessor Paras Ram had been inducted as a tenant in the year 1960 and ever since he and after his death they were in possession and that vide mutation Ex. D-1, attested on 12th February, 1982, they have been conferred the proprietary rights, under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. 4. Trial Court rejected the plea of mortgage set up by the plaintiff-appellant and upheld defendants’- respondents’ plea of tenancy. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. Appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant, in the Court of District Judge, was also dismissed. 5. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the District Judge has misread and misinferred the oral and documentary evidence on record, more specifically the revenue entries to come to the conclusion that the respondents are the tenants over the land in dispute?” 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. …3… 7. Plaintiff-appellant had raised the dispute that the defendants-respondents were not his tenants but only mortgagees, before Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, who passed the order of conferment of proprietary rights Ex. D-1, on 12th February, 1982. When this kind of dispute had been raised, it was required to be determined by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, in view of the provision of Rule 29 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975, which Rule is reproduced below, for ready reference: “29. Determination of disputes under sub- section (4) of section 104.-If there is a dispute regarding the entries of the land records the Land Reforms Officer, in his capacity as an Assistant Collector of the First Grade, shall decide the dispute under sub-section (4) of section 104 in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, or the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, as the case may be. The disputes of such cases will be determined on a summary inquiry on the files.” 8. Admittedly, the question was determined by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, who did not have the jurisdiction to determine the same. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine such a question is barred, under Section 112 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. If that is so, it is only the authorities, constituted under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and the Rules framed thereunder, who have the exclusive jurisdiction to determine such kind of disputes. …4… 9. In view of the abovestated position, appeal is accepted and judgments and decrees of the two Courts below are set aside. The parties are at liberty to approach the competent authorities, under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and the Rules framed thereunder, for determination of the dispute as to whether the defendants- respondents are tenants or not, in respect of the suit property. Appeal stands disposed of. June 24, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J