JUDGMENT H. S. Thakur, J.—This second appeal is preferred by the appellants against the decree and judgment passed by the lower appellate court on March 19, 1971 affirming the decree and judgment passed by the trial court. 2. Relevant facts to decide this appeal may briefly be stated. S/Shri Zalam and Narain Singh were the owners of the land in dispute measuring 23 Bighas 11 Biswas. The Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Abolition Act) came into force with effect from January 26, 1955. Under section 27 of the Abolition Act, this land vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances and by an order dated May 19, 1966, the Compensation Officer transferred the rights, title and interest of the land owner in the land in dispute to the respondent under sub-section (4) of section 27 of the said Act on the ground that the respondent was a cultivating tenant of the land in dispute The order of the Compensation Officer wa3 challenged by the appellants in a Civil Court and they prayed for setting aside the said order. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the respondent was a sub-tenant in a part of the land measuring only 4 Bighas 6 Biswas comprised in Khasra No. 280, 315, 508 and 517. ii was further contended that the Compensation Officer failed to serve them with a notice and, therefore, they could not claim the ownership rights in the land in dispute, as non occupancy tenants The ultimate prayer of the appellants was that the order of the Compensation Officer be declared as illegal and that they be held entitled to get the ownership rights in the land in dispute on payment of compensation. The trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and on appeal the lower appellate court affirmed the decree and judgment passed by the trial court. 3. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the relevant revenue record the respondent is entered as a sub-tenant in respect of the entire land in suit. The trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and on appeal the lower appellate court affirmed the decree and judgment passed by the trial court. 3. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the relevant revenue record the respondent is entered as a sub-tenant in respect of the entire land in suit. It is, however, contended by the learned counsel that the respondent was a sub-tenant on a portion of land measuring only 4 Bighas 6 Biswas According to the learned counsel the rest of the land was cultivated as sub-tenants by S/Shri Ghamia and Surma, S/Shri Ghamia and Surma were not even impleaded as parties to the suit. They have also not come forward with a claim that all rights, title and interest in the land be conferred on them by virtue of sub-section (4) of section 27 of the Abolition Act. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that irrespective of the fact that respondent, Ghamia and Surma were cultivating tenants of the land in dispute, the appellants being the original tenants, only were entitled to get the rights of ownership etc., in the land in dispute. It is asserted that sub-tenants, who were of course cultivating the land, had no right to acquire proprietary and other rights in the land simply because they were cultivating the same. In this context, reference may be made to sub-section (4) of section 27 of the Abolition Act. The said provision is extracted hereunder for a ready reference : "27 (4), The right, title and interest of the land-owner acquired under sub-section (1) or (2) shall be transferred by the State Government on the payment of compensation in accordance with Schedule 1 to such tenant who cultivates such land.” 5. A perusal of the aforesaid provision clearly indicates that right, title and interest of the land owner shall be transferred on the payment of compensation to such tenant who cultivates such land. It may be pointed out that the object of the Abolition Act was to provide for the abolition of the big landed estates and to reform the law relating to tenants and to make provisions for matters connected therewith. The said legislation can apparently be termed as a social legislation. It may be pointed out that the object of the Abolition Act was to provide for the abolition of the big landed estates and to reform the law relating to tenants and to make provisions for matters connected therewith. The said legislation can apparently be termed as a social legislation. The object behind the passing of this Act was to make the tiller the owner of the land, cultivated by him. At common parlance, cultivator means a person who actually ploughs the land and harvests the crop. A social legislation has to be interpreted in a manner that enhances the object of the Act, As such, otherwise also the statute has to be interpreted in a manner that may benefit the tiller of land. Such a social legislation is to be interpreted liberally m favour of a cultivating tenant and against others. 6. Keeping the aforesaid object of the legislation in view, it can be legitimately inferred that a cultivating tenant, who events a sub-tenant cultivates the land, is entitled to acquire proprietary and other rights under sub-section (4) of section 27 of the Abolition Act. It may be pointed out that every land-lord is not necessarily the owner of land. If a non-occupancy tenant, who is not cultivating the land sublets the same to a sub-tenant, the position of such an occupancy-tenant is that of a landlord. 7. I have perused the record and considered the evidence adduced by the parties. The lower appellate court has rightly observed that the oral evidence produced by the appellants is not convincing I have also perused the entries in the revenue record. Ex, PA is the copy of jamabandi for the year l()64-65 and the respondent is entered as a sub-tenant in the said jamabandi and in the column of rent it is mentioned that the respondent is laying ‘galla batai’ to the appellants. Ex, D. 1 is the copy of jamabandi for the year 1956-57, Ex. D. 2 is the copy of Ichasra-girdawari for the year 195>£8, Ex. D. 3 is the copy of jamabandi for the year 1960-61, Ex D 4 is the copy of khasra-girdawari for the year 1960 61 whereas Ex D. 5 is the copy of jamabandi for the year 1964-65. D. 2 is the copy of Ichasra-girdawari for the year 195>£8, Ex. D. 3 is the copy of jamabandi for the year 1960-61, Ex D 4 is the copy of khasra-girdawari for the year 1960 61 whereas Ex D. 5 is the copy of jamabandi for the year 1964-65. In all these documents, the respondent is shown as a cultivating sub-tenant under the appellants and in the column of rent he is shown as paying galla batai to the appellants. It cannot be disputed that entries in the revenue record carry presumption of truth and this presumption can only be rebutted by adducing reliable evidence. The courts below have arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that the respondent is the cultivating tenant of the land in dispute. 8. In view of the above discussion, the inevitable result that follows is that the respondent being a cultivating tenant of the land in dispute was legally entitled to acquire proprietary and other rights in the land in dispute 9. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.