JUDGMENT P.K. Palli, J. —The plaintiff-appellants having lost in bath the Court below are in second appeal before this Court.. 2. The suit out of which, the present appeal arises was filed by the plaintiffs seeking possession on the ground that they were in cultivation of the suit land as non-occupancy tenants under the defendant No. 2 Smt. Jhalri who was occupancy tenant over the suit land. Smt, Jhalri is said to have acquired proprietary rights and thereafter is said to have sold the suit land in favour of the defendant No.1. According to the plaintiffs, they were dispossessed illegally somewhere in November, 1969 by the defendant No.1 Bhup Singh and irrespective of the land having been allotted and them sold by defendant No.2, they continue to be the non-occupancy tenants and having been illegally dispossessed, they were entitled to get back the possession of the suit land in the capacity as tenants at will. 3. The defendants denied the status of the plaintiffs as tenants on the suit land The allegation that they were forcibly dispossessed was also denied and according to the defendant No. i, he has been in possession as owner after its purchase from Smt. Jhalri. 4. The learned Trial Court on appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties found that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish on record that they were non-occupancy tenants over the suit land and further they were wrongly dispossessed by the defendant No. 1. The suit was consequently ordered to be dismissed. 5. The plaintiffs filed first appeal which stands dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court stands affirmed. 6. Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs is at pains to contend that the learned first appellate Court has not cared to decide the appeal on merits and no finding has been recorded as to whether the plaintiffs were non occupancy tenants over the suit land under the defendant No. 2 Smt, Jhalri. The appeal according to the learned Counsel stands disposed of after placing reliance on a full bench decision of the Punjab High Court in a case of Bhag Singh and others v. Jawahar Singh and others, AIR 1965 Punj 321. The appeal according to the learned Counsel stands disposed of after placing reliance on a full bench decision of the Punjab High Court in a case of Bhag Singh and others v. Jawahar Singh and others, AIR 1965 Punj 321. in the impugned judgment, the learned First Appellate Court has held that in view of the law noticed ia the various authorities cited at the bar, the suit was not maintainable as the remedy lies with the revenue officer and the suit could be filed within one year from the date of dispossession of the plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs in November, 1969 and the present suit having been filed in the year, 1973 was not maintainable after the expiry of the stipulated period and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the case. 7. Mr. Malhotra has also brought to my notice another full bench decision of Himachal Beach at Shimla in a case of Chuhary v Sitru, Delhi (1968) 4 Delhi Law Times Vol 412 and k is sought to be contended that after noticing the full bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Bhag Singhs case, the Honble Bench held that the same was not applicable as the scheme of the Punjab Tenancy Act is different from that of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act (15 of 1954) Learned Counsel thus submits that the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court be set-aside and the case be remanded back, for decision of the appeal afresh on merits. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents while opposing the arguments of the learned Counsel opposite contends that the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court is well reasoned and is further based on case law and no interference is called for in second appeal. 9. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the impugned judgments, I have questioned the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs to show as to how the plaintiffs were in cultivating possession of the suit land as non-occupancy tenants under Smt. Jhalri-defendant No. 2 and further how they were illegally dispossessed by the defendants No.1 after the purchase of the suit land by him from her. It is only thereafter, the question would arise as to whether the learned First Appellate Court has correctly relied upon the decision made by the Honble Pali Beach of the Punjab High Court or the case is distinguishable by the latter Full Bench Decision of this Court noticed above, 10. The learned Counsel on being pointedly asked to refer to the evidence to show that the plaintiffs were in cultivating possession as tenants at will or not, has not been able to point out any piece of evidence on the strength of which the plaintiffs could be held to be the tenants of the suit land under Smt Jhalri 11. Admittedly, the land belonged to the State of Himachal Pradesh and came to vest in it under section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, (Act No.15 of 1954) and since the defendant No. 2 Sent. Jhalri was in possession of the land as occupancy tenant, the proprietary rights came to be conferred upon her by the concerned authority under the Act. It is further admitted that the land came to be sold in favour of the defendant No. 1 Bhup Singh who is recorded as owner in possession. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they have been illegally dispossessed somewhere in November, 1969 by Bhup Singh. 12. One Goverdhan was the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and it is to be seen whether there was any creation of tenancy by Smt. Jhalri in his favour or not. It is at this stage pertinent to point out that the suit riled by the plaintiffs earlier was decreed by the learned trial Court, but on defendants appeal, the same was allowed and the case was remanded back far decision afresh and thereafter the suit was again tried and stands dismissed The parties were also given a chance to lead further evidence after the remand of the case It may be seen that in para 7, it has been recorded by the learned trial Court that the plaintiffs after the remand of the case have virtually led no evidence whatsoever. In the plaint, it is averred that Goverdhan was the non-occupancy tenant under Smt, Jhalri. The evidence led by the plaintiffs is to the effect that the rent was to be paid by Smt. Jhalri to the concerned owner and not by Goverdhan, their predecessor-in-interest 13. In the plaint, it is averred that Goverdhan was the non-occupancy tenant under Smt, Jhalri. The evidence led by the plaintiffs is to the effect that the rent was to be paid by Smt. Jhalri to the concerned owner and not by Goverdhan, their predecessor-in-interest 13. It is too well known that tenancy is created by an agreement implied or express and a person claiming himself to be a tenant has to place on record clear evidence to establish his rights of tenancy over the suit land. The present case is not a case in respect of creation of tenancy by operation of law, the plaintiffs relied on the entries existing in the Missal Haquiat, Ex P1 of the year, 1965. In the remarks column of this document, reference is made in respect of tenancy by the settlement staff. The learned trial Court on deep scrutiny of this document has observed in para 8 that the Missal No.118 was prepared on 11-1-1963 as per decision of the Tehsildar dated 6-1-1965. The correction of the revenue entries in the Missal Haquiat was prepared on 11-1-1965. It casts a thick shadow of doubt as to how and under was circumstances, the case could be decided on 6-1-1965 before the preparation of the file. It was for the plaintiffs to remove this doubt which they have miserably failed to remove. 14. There is a reference to the order which order is conspicuously missing and has not been placed on record from the side of the plaintiffs. At this stage, Mr, Malhotra is at pains to pray that the case be remanded and one more opportunity be afforded to the plaintiffs to place on record the said order In my considered opinion, the plaintiffs are not entitled for this concession in "view of the fact that the case was remanded back after affording opportunity to the plaintiffs to place such other evidence on record which they desire to place and inspire of this opportunity, no evidence has been paced on record. This fact has been noticed by me in this judgment The suit out of which the present appeal arises was decided in the year, 1984 and this appeal has remained pending in this Court since 1988 and in case, there was any truth in what the plaintiffs alleged the order could have been placed on record by moving an application under Order, 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure The prayer thus made by Mr. Malhotra is wholly devoid of force and is rejected. 15. As per Jamabandi, it may be specifically made cleat that except the Jamabandi of the year 1062-63, there is no other piece of evidence to support the plea raised by the plaintiffs in respect of their tenancy. This Jamabandi has been prepared during settlement and do reliance, can be placed on it and nothing has been placed on record to show as to how the entries already existing came to be scored off and the plaintiffs were shown in possession of the suit land, Ex. P-6 is the Girdwari of the same year and the entries tally with the entries given in the remarks column of Ex-P-1. It may be noticed that right from 1964 till 1965 when Ex P-l was prepared, the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs is not recorded in any of the revenue papers nor the name of the plaintiffs is recorded any where after 1966. As per Jamabandi of the year 1971-72, Ex P-4 the defendant No.1 is recorded as owner in possession. It need not be stressed that the entries which are incorporated in the Jamabandi for the relevant year, ate based on the existing position during the earlier four years and this would mean that the defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit land four years prior to 1971-72. This would take us back to the years 1966/67. The plaintiffs thus cannot be believed to say that they have been dispossessed somewhere to November, 1969 and that too forcibly and illegally by the defendant No. 2 There is no evidence on record to this effect This is again surprising to find as to how the plaintiffs having been forcibly dispossessed in November, 1969 remained quiet till the filing of the suit in the year 1973, by them. It has already been said that no piece of evidence has been brought on record from the side of the plaintiffs to establish the creation of tenancy in their favour or in favour of their predecessor-in-interest, by the defendant No. 2. A simple pots in the remarks column of Missal Haquiat by no stretch of imagination can be held to establish that the plaintiffs were non-occupancy tenants over the suit land as alleged, 16. During the examination of the record, another important document has come to my notice and it is Ex D-l which is an order dated 26th March, 1966 at page 33 of the record. This order has been passed by the compensation officer in a case. It State v. Jhalri" seeking correction of the revenue entries. The case was instituted on 26th December, 1964 and decided on 26th of March, 1966. After examination of the statement made by Smt Jhalri and on examination of the revenue record, it was found that she has been found to be in cultivating possession of the suit land as per Jamabandi of the year 1962-63 and thus ownership rights are ordered to be conferred upon her The file was consigned to the record on 30th April, 1968. It is thus surprising to find as to how during the settlement, an entry came to be recorded favouring the plaintiffs when the proceedings were pending as noticed in Ex D-l. The plaintiffs have further failed to show as to whether any notice or opportunity was afforded to Smt Jhalri or the defendant No.1 before the change was made. It is also in doubt whether any set procedure was followed for making the change by the settlement staff while preparing Ex P-l. The field staff is not permitted to tinker with the existing entries unless the person in whose favour the entries are recorded, is given a notice and opportunity to show cause as to why the entries be not changed. The revenue staff has thus onerous duty to perform and the right, title or interest of a citizen as recorded cannot be permitted to be obliterated without proper procedure having been followed. The Civil Courts have to act as zealous guardians of the rights of the citizens when the question comes to their notice in a Its. 17. The revenue staff has thus onerous duty to perform and the right, title or interest of a citizen as recorded cannot be permitted to be obliterated without proper procedure having been followed. The Civil Courts have to act as zealous guardians of the rights of the citizens when the question comes to their notice in a Its. 17. In view of what has been said above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is ordered to be dismissed with costs throughout. Appeal dismissed.