JUDGMENT 1. Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of a common judgment passed by the District Judge, Chamba in two civil appeals filed by the respective appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Chamba. 2. Ram Lal alias Kaka Ram, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 8 was the original plaintiff in civil suit No. 61 of 1984 wherein other defendants were Union of India, State of Himachal Pradesh, Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation and Custodian Department), Himachal Pradesh, Collector Chamba (Custodian Department), Hari Nath and Jhanda Ram. In this judgment parties are being referred to as Plaintiffs and Defendants. RSA No. 371 of 1990 has been filed by defendant No. 6, Hari Nath and RSA No. 387 of 1990 has been filed by Union of India and four others. 3. Plaintiff Ram Lal who originally filed the suit died during the pendency of the appeal filed by Hari Nath as well as by Union of India and others before the District Judge, Chamba and respondents Nos. 1 to 8 were added as his legal representatives in the appeal. Plaintiff was granted evacuee property bearing No. 116 situate at Chamba town as far back in 1955 by the Managing Officer, Custodian Property, Jalandhar. Pursuant to such grant conveyance deed was executed on the basis whereof mutation No. 1210 dated 27-4-1968 in respect of said property No. 116 came to be attested in his favour and thus, an area of 468.7 sq. ft. comprised in Khasra Nos. 6964, 6965, 6966, 6967, 6968 and 6977, Kittas 6, (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) came to be attested in his favour. Case of the plaintiff was that he continued to be owner in possession of the entire suit land, part of it has been built upon by him. It appears that Hari Nath, defendant applied for review of this mutation, as according to him, plaintiff had been conveyed in area measuring 281 sq. yards. This application was turned down. 4. Thereafter, Hari Nath and Jhanda Ram defendants approached Deputy Commissioner, Chamba for review of mutation which was ordered accordingly vide order dated 29-7-1981. It appears that Hari Nath, defendant applied for review of this mutation, as according to him, plaintiff had been conveyed in area measuring 281 sq. yards. This application was turned down. 4. Thereafter, Hari Nath and Jhanda Ram defendants approached Deputy Commissioner, Chamba for review of mutation which was ordered accordingly vide order dated 29-7-1981. Against this order of Deputy Commissioner, Chamba plaintiff preferred a revision petition before Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division which also met the same fate and when the matter was further taken up by the plaintiff in revision before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Himachal Pradesh, the order of Deputy Commissioner, Chamba reviewing the mutation was upheld vide order dated 19-12-1983. Against these orders, plaintiff preferred CWP No. 20 of 1984, wherein it was held that the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the suit for clearing the cloud, if any, created on the title, if any, of the petitioner (plaintiff) o the disputed property is not barred. in these circumstances, the Court further observed that it saw no reason to interfere in the matter and left the petitioner to prosecute his remedy in the ordinary course. 5. It is in this background that the suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff. Copy of mutation No. 1210 is Ext. P-2 on the file whereas copy of the order of Deputy Commissioner, Chamba is Ext. P-9, copy of order of Divisional Commissioner is Ext. P10 and that of Financial Commissioner is Ext. P-11. Copy of the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 20 of 1984 leaving the parties to have recourse to Civil Court is Ext. P-12 on the file. 6. This suit was contested and resisted by all the defendants and according to the defendants No. 1 to 5, the suit was not maintainable, court had no jurisdiction besides its being barred by time and on merits the claim of the plaintiff was specifically repudiated and it was urged that an area measuring 281 Sq. yards was transferred by means of conveyance deed (Ext. P-1) by the Custodian Department to him and the remaining area was not conveyed to him. Orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner (Revenue) were stated to be legal and valid. yards was transferred by means of conveyance deed (Ext. P-1) by the Custodian Department to him and the remaining area was not conveyed to him. Orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner (Revenue) were stated to be legal and valid. Defendant No. 6 Hari Nath filed a separate written statement and while controverting the stand of the plaintiff he further urged that the area conveyed to the plaintiff consists of Khasra No. 6964, 6965 and 6966 measuring 281 sq. yards which should have been entered in his name. According to him, Khasra No. 6977 is in his possession and formed a part of property No.; 118 which has been purchased by the said defendant. Claim of the plaintiff to maintain the suit on the basis of possession was also disputed. Defendant No. 7 Jhanda Ram stated that he only set the Govt. machinery in action after having found that the mutation is incorrectly attested in favour of the plaintiff. Otherwise he had no interest and thus, wrongly impleaded as a paty to the suit. In these circumstances, he claimed specific costs under Section 35, C.P.C. 7. In replication by the plaintiff, all the pleas raised on behalf of defendants were controverted and those in the plaint were re-affirmed. 8. In the aforesaid background, the parties were put to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land and is entitled for the decree for permanent injunction, as alleged by the defendants Nos. 6 and 7? . . .OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief for restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 5 from proceeding with the mutation on the basis of judgment dated 29-7-1981, 19-5-1983 and 19-12-1983 of the Deputy Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner, H.P. respectively ? . . .OPP. @page-HP30 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration to the effect that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner are null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff ? . . .OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff has not constructed house in Khasra No. 6977 as alleged in para No. 3 of the written statement ? . . .OPD-6. 5. . . .OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff has not constructed house in Khasra No. 6977 as alleged in para No. 3 of the written statement ? . . .OPD-6. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit that he has failed to get the relief writ dismissed by the High Court as alleged in Para No. 7 of W.S.? . . .OPD-6. 6. Whether the defendant N o. 7 is unnecessary party in the suit as alleged in para No. 8 of the W.S. of defendant No. 6 ? . . .OPD 6 and 7. 7. Whether the suit is beyond limitation as alleged in para No. 10 of the W.S. of defendant No. 6? . . .OPDs. (Onus and form objected). 8. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged by defendant No. 6 in para No. 10 of W.S.? . . .OPP 1 to 6. 9. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? . . .OPD 1 to 5. 10. Whether no legal notice under Section 80 ,C.P.C. has been served upon the defendants Nos. 1 to 5? . . .OPD 1 to 5. 11. Whether no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff as alleged in para No. 10 of the W.S. of 1 to 5? . . .OPD 1 to 5. 12. Whether proper court-fee has not been paid, if so, what is the proper fee? . . .OPD 1 to 5. 13. Whether defendant No. 7 is entitled for spent court-fee under Section 35 as alleged in para No. 12 of the written statement? . . .OPD 7. 14. Relief. 9. Issues Nos. 1 to 3 were held in the affirmative whereas issues Nos. 4 to 7 were held in the negative and issues Nos. 8 to 12 were not pressed, whereas issue No. 13 was again held in the negative and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed under issue No. 14 holding the plaintiff to be the onwer in possession in respect of the suit property No. 116 as detailed hereinabove in this judgment and the orders of Deputy Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner were held to be illegal, not binding on the plaintiff and defendants were restrained permanently from interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the said land. 10. 10. Defendants were not satisfied with this judgment and decree and Hari Nath, defendant and Union of India, defendant preferred appeals against the said judgment and decree. Both the appeals were dismissed by the lower appellate Court, hence RSA No. 271 of 1990 by Hari Nath and RSA No. 287 of 1990 by Union of India and others. 11. In both the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants have raised three questions :- (a) Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of Sections 163 and 177 of H.P. Land Revenue Act; (b) As per conveyance deed area measuring 281 sq. yards was conveyed to Ram Lal, plainiff and not 468.7 sq. yards; and (c) Hari Nath was claiming 50 sq. yards out of khasra No. 6967 which is also a part of decree granted in favour of the plaintiff and the dispute was whether area comprised in Khasra Nos. 6967, 6968 and 6977 was ever conveyed in favour of the plaintiff vide Ext. P-1. 12. Another salient feature in this case is that in the conveyance deed (Ext. P1) neither khasra numbers nor area is mentioned. Only boundries are described therein. On the other hand, defendants placed reliance on valuation form (Ext. DA), wherein area is given but without khasra numbers. While referring to Ext. DA, it was urged on behalf of Hari Nath, defendant that property No. 118 was purchased by him. 13. Both the Courts below have examined the evidence in detail. For the purposes of this appeal, brief reference will be made to the evidence in this judgment to avoid repetition. 14. At the very outset, it may be appropriate to mention here that issue No. 9 related to jurisdiction of civil court, onus of this issue was on defendants Nos. 1 to 5 (appellants in RSA No. 387 of 1990) and this issue was not pressed. Not only this, when a reference is made to the judgment passed by the first appellate court, this issue again does not seem to have been pressed into service. Still being a legal issue, the parties were heard on this aspect of the case. 15. When the plaintiff had questioned the orders passed in Exts. Not only this, when a reference is made to the judgment passed by the first appellate court, this issue again does not seem to have been pressed into service. Still being a legal issue, the parties were heard on this aspect of the case. 15. When the plaintiff had questioned the orders passed in Exts. P-9 to P-11 before this Court in CWP No. 20 of 1984, the parties were permitted to rake up the question before the civil court, as in the said judgment it has been held that the jurisdiction of civil court is not barred. After having suffered that judgment, it would not lie in the mouth of the defendants so say that civil court had no jurisdiction. When a reference is made to Ext. P-12, this court had observed as under :- ".................... Mr. Chhabil Dass, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, urged that no civil suit lies having regard to the provisions of Section 163 read with Section 171 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953. The submission, in our opinion, is ill founded. The opening words of Section 163 clearly indicate that before any action could be taken thereunder, the land in question should be Government land or land which has been reserved for the site of a village or for the common purposes of the co-sharers therein. Therefore, there should be no dispute on the question of title before an action is initiated under Section 163. If there is a dispute, then the dispute will have to be first resolved by a Court of competent jurisdiction - especially if the dispute is of a serious nature - and then only the power under Section 163 of the Act can be legitimately exercised. Section 171, which creates a bar to be read in light of this legal position. Section 171, sub-section (2), Clause (xxv) relates to an order of ejectment passed pursuant to the valid exercise of the power under Section 163. If a revenue authority acting under Section 163 determine the question of title when it is seriously in dispute between the parties and consequently passes orders in the section, such a determination would not oust the jurisdiction of the civil courts. If a revenue authority acting under Section 163 determine the question of title when it is seriously in dispute between the parties and consequently passes orders in the section, such a determination would not oust the jurisdiction of the civil courts. It is well settled that even if the statute gives finality to the orders of special tribunals, such a provision does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure (See: Dhulabhai etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78). Under the circumstances, in a case like the present, the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit for clearing the cloud, if any, created on the title, if any, of the petitioner to the disputed land, is not barred. Be it be stated that Section 46 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953 saves the right of an aggrieved person to file a declaratory decree in case of an entry in the revenue record and that that provision also has its own bearing on the question of ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court. For the foregoing reasons, we see no reason to interfere in this matter and leave the petitioner to prosecute his remedy in the ordinary forum." 16. In the face of the aforesaid decision of this Court vide Ext. P-12, the plea that the civil court has no jurisdiction has been raised simply to be rejected. 17. Now, taking up all the other pleas raised on behalf of the defendants in both the appeals as to the extent of property conveyed in favour of the Ram Lal by Ext.P-1 and the area of the said property. After examining the evidence both oral as well as documentary on record, it can safely be held that the area was 468.7 sq. yards and not 281 sq. yards as claimed by the defendants in their respective written statements and as urged in the present appeal on their behalf. 18. Before the property was taken over by the plaintiff, he is shown to be in possession of this property since 1955 till mutation Ext. P-2 dated 27-4-1968 came to be attested in his favour. yards as claimed by the defendants in their respective written statements and as urged in the present appeal on their behalf. 18. Before the property was taken over by the plaintiff, he is shown to be in possession of this property since 1955 till mutation Ext. P-2 dated 27-4-1968 came to be attested in his favour. In addition to this, there is also evidence on record to show that in the area that was purchased by the plaintiff, there stood a slateposh house. On any of the three khasra numbers, which according to defendants was conveyed to him, there is no mention of such house. On the other hand, there is evidence to show that in place of the old house, plaintiff had constructed his new house. When it is admitted case of the parties that Property No. 116 which was conveyed by the Custodian Department to the plaintiff belonged initially to Nawabdin, who had left the country at the time of partition and it was this property that was conveyed that is the subject-matter of Ext. P-1. When a reference is made to jamabandis (Exts. P-3 to P-6), it is clear that GAIR MUMKIN KUTCHA MAKAAN DO MANJILA stands on khasra No. 6967, whereas Gair Mumkin Sehan is in khasra No. 6969 and there is a dilapidated structure (stood on khasra No. 6977). This position remains in respect of these khasra numbers as is evident from Ext. P-5. 19. Another aspect not to accept the claim of Hari Nath, defendant is that he was not aggrieved by the order (Ext. P-4) that was passed on review application filed by him before the Collector for reviewing mutation No. 1210 dated 27-4-1968 sanction in favour of the plaintiff showing an area of 468.7 sq. yards. This order was passed on 13-12-1977 in case No. 2/3. It appears that he had no grievance in that behalf. It is not understood that in the face of this order being there, how Collector, Chamba passed the order (Ext. P-9) on 29-7-1981 again at the instance of Hari Nath and Jhanda Ram, defendants. In fact, passing of the order at the instance of Hari Nath was not only illegal, but was also an abuse of the process of law and Court in the face of Ext. P-4 and without its having been questioned anywhere. P-9) on 29-7-1981 again at the instance of Hari Nath and Jhanda Ram, defendants. In fact, passing of the order at the instance of Hari Nath was not only illegal, but was also an abuse of the process of law and Court in the face of Ext. P-4 and without its having been questioned anywhere. Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner had ignored this aspect of the case. 20. No doubt, mutation No. 1210 did not either confer or extinguish title in favour of plaintiff in case Hari Nath had any title to any part of the suit land. However, even on examination of evidence produced by the parties during the course of trial completely proved the case of the plaintiff. In this behalf, when a reference is made to the statements of PWs 1 to 4, one thing is clear that after demolition of the house of Nawabdin, plaintiff had constructed a three-storeyed house on the land in question. At the risk of repetition it may again be noted here that the earlier two-storeyed kutcha house of Nawabdin stood on khasra No. 6769 prior to mutation No. 1210 and in the face of stand of the defendants that property of Nawabdin was conveyed to the plaintiff, the trial court below had rightly decreed the claim of the plaintiff which has further been correctly upheld in appeal and this Court on consideration of the entire material before it finds no reason to take a different view. 21. Another reason for declining the pleas raised on behalf of the defendants in both these appeals is that when DW 2 Om Parkash, Assistant from the office of Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Settlement Officer (Sales) appeared, he admitted that he had not brought the original file of property No. 116, though he persisted that this area was 281 sq. yards. He further admitted in cross-examination that in the basic property, register from which he had produced Ext. DA in relation to property Nos. 116 and 118, area and khasra numbers of property No. 118 (purported to have been purchased by Hari Nath) is not given. 22. From whatever angle, the case of the defendants may be viewed, it is evident that there is no merit in it and accordingly both these appeals are dismissed. Costs on parties. Appeals dismissed.