JUDGMENT R. K. Anand, F. C—Petitioners, Krishan Chand and others have preferred a revision petition against the order, dated 19-6-1984 of the Additional Commissioner, Shimla Division. By virtue of the impurgned order, he dismissed the appeal preferred to him by the petitioners and up-held the order of the Collector, Paonta Sub-Division. It was held by him that since the relationship of landlord and tenant was not proved between the State and the petitioner, the revenue entry incorporated in the Jamabandi showing the petitioner as Kabiz was justified and should be substained. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners made an application to the Assistant Collector, Ilnd Grade, Paonta Sahib, for the correction of revenue entries in respect of land measuring O-6 Bighas, comprising Khasra No. 275/185, situated in Paonta Sahib, requesting that the old entries existing in the revenue record be restored and the petitioners be shown as non-occupancy tenants in the record of rights. The Assistant Collector, Ilnd Grade, allowed the application and ordered the restoration of the entries existing in the revenue record prior to 1974-75 vide his order, dated 27-8-1982. This order of Collector, Ilnd Grade, was assailed in appeal by the State. The Sub-Divisional Collector accepted the appeal an set-aside the order of the Assistant Collector, Ilnd Grade. His order is, dated 30-12-1983. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned District Attorney for the State and perused the court record. It is apparent from the entries incorporated in the Jamabandi for the year 1969-70 that Tulsi has been shown as a non-occupancy tenant of the land, in question. In the column of rent, however, it is mentioned Bushehra Malkan Bila Malkana. In the subsequent Jamabandi for the year 197y-&0, Siri Ram, who is the son of Tulsi is shown as Kabiz and the rent column is blank. In other words, the Jamabandi entries have been changed and instead of recording the petitioners father as a non-occupancy tenant in the column of cultivation, he is shown as mere Kabiz. While Tulsi was the father of Siri Ram, the present petitioners are the sons of Siri Ram. In other words, the Jamabandi entries have been changed and instead of recording the petitioners father as a non-occupancy tenant in the column of cultivation, he is shown as mere Kabiz. While Tulsi was the father of Siri Ram, the present petitioners are the sons of Siri Ram. Perusal of the court record reveals that the Jamabandi entries were changed because it was contended by the office Kanungo, Paonta Sahib, who appeared on behalf of the State before the Sub-Divisional Collector that the petitioners were not paying any rent and therefore, there was no relationship of a land-lord and a tenant between ihe parties. It was added by him that unless there was a contract between them and the petitioners were paying rent to the land-lord for the tenancy land they could not have been shown as the non-occupancy tenants in the record of rights. The contention of the office Kanungo was accepted by the Sub Divisional Collector who also observed that the petitioners grandfather, Tulsi also was not paying any rent either to the Government of Himachal Pradesh or to the Gurudwara Paonta Sahib, the previous owner of the land. He thus came to the conclusion that this entry in the record of rights to the effect that the petitioners grand father was a non-occupancy tenant was made in violation of the rules and the petitioners were not non-occupancy tenants but could, at best, be treated as Kabiz’ He, therefore, held that the entry of Kabiz was correct. 4. While it is true that no rent was being paid by the petitioners grand fathers there is no evidence to this effect, the correctness of the entry in the Jamabandi cannot be questioned allot a sudden in view of fact that presumption of truth is attached to the Jamabandi entries and elaborate procedure for changing the Jamabandi entries has been laid down in the H.P, Land Revenue Act. It is admitted that the petitioners grand father, Tulsi was a tenant under the previous owner, namely Gurudwara Paonta Sahib. If the petitioners did not have the status of a tenant and the entry was erroneous, proper procedure as contained in the H.P. Land Revenue Act for the correction of Jamabandi entries should have been followed. Failure to follow the procedure amounts to a procedural irregularity and vitiates the order. If the petitioners did not have the status of a tenant and the entry was erroneous, proper procedure as contained in the H.P. Land Revenue Act for the correction of Jamabandi entries should have been followed. Failure to follow the procedure amounts to a procedural irregularity and vitiates the order. Moreover, the question whether the petitioner is a non-occupancy tenant or not should be decided before the revenue entries incorporated in the Jamabandi are changed.—Proper procedure for changing these entries should also be followed. In view of the legal infirmity in order passed by the Sub Division Collector, Paonta Sahib, the revision petition is allowed and the orders, dated 30-12-1983 and 19-6-1984 passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Paonta Sahib and the Additional Commissioner, Simla Divisional, are set aside, and the revision petition is allowed. Revision Petition allowed.