ORDER S.S. Negi.—This case has come up for hearing on the recommendations of learned Commissioner, Shimla Division made vide order dated 19.1.1998 whereby he has recommended that the order passed by the Assistant Collector I Grade on 16.11.1996 and that of Sub-Divisional Collector, Theog, dated 28.8.1997 be set aside. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that S/Shri Jagat Ram and 3 other petitioners applied to the Assistant Collector I Grade, Theog for correction of revenue entry in respect of land comprising in Khasra No. 293/191, Kita 1, measuring 5-9 Bighas, situated in Chak Galu-Kalan, Tehsil Theog in the revenue record stating that they were in possession of the land in question for the last more than 30 years and they were inducted as tenants by the then owners and they were paying the land revenue etc. of the said land for the last many years. It was further stated that the owners were not residing in Himachal and their whereabouts were not known. A prayer was made that the applicant be recorded as tenants of the land in question. The Assistant Collector commenced the proceedings and in course of which he recorded the statements of the applicant/present respondents as well as Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Shateyan and Lambardar of the area. The other party did not appear before the Assistant Collector I Grade because they were not served personally, though service upon them was effected by affixation and by way of publication in the Rajpatra. The Assistant Collector after hearing the parties and going through the evidence allowed the application by which he ordered change in cultivation column in favour of the applicants vide his order dated 16.11.1996. Aggrieved of this order of the Assistant Collector I Grade, dated 16.11.1996 the petitioners S/Shri Dev Raj alias Devi Nand and Kishori Lai filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Theog on various grounds mainly on non-joinder of necessary parties and illegal and defective mode of service. The Sub-Divisional Collector after hearing the parties and going through the record, dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 28.8.1997. Dissatisfied with the order of Sub-Divisional Collector, the petitioners S/Shri Dev Raj alias Devi Nand and 2 others filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Shimla Division. The Sub-Divisional Collector after hearing the parties and going through the record, dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 28.8.1997. Dissatisfied with the order of Sub-Divisional Collector, the petitioners S/Shri Dev Raj alias Devi Nand and 2 others filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Shimla Division. The learned Commissioner heard both the parties and scrutinized the entire record of the case and accordingly concluded that the application for correction was allowed by the Assistant Collector in undue haste. He also concluded that evidence brought on record was not enough to prove the factum of tenancy and has accordingly recommended that the orders passed by Assistant Collector and Collector need be set aside. 3. I have heard both the parties as also have gone through the record of the case. 4. There are two issues which require determination in the present controversy. The petitioners have, firstly raised the question of proper service stating that they were not associated with the proceedings and service so effected upon them was defective. The service upon the petitioners was effected by affixation and publication in H.P. Rajpatra. The learned Commissioner has returned the findings that service by way of affixation and consequent publication in Rajpatra is in order and there is nothing irregular in such service and service therefore, is complete. The mode of service envisaged under Section 21 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 and under Section 71 of the H.P. Tenancy and Law Reforms Act, 1972 do not provide for effecting the Service by way of publication in H.P. Rajpatra. The publication of proclamation in the Rajpatra is not a valid service and is not in accordance with the provisions of law and orders passed in consequence of such service are ex-parte orders against the petitioners without affording any legal opportunity to them to defend their case, in which their substantive rights as to ownership and possession were involved. Accordingly the orders thus passed by Assistant Collector and Collector are irregular and deserve to be set aside on this short ground alone. 5. But apart from this, the case has been examined from other angle also. As has been noted above the case involves substantive question of rights and obligation of the parties subsisting in the revenue record for a number of decades and presumption of truth is attachable to such a record. 5. But apart from this, the case has been examined from other angle also. As has been noted above the case involves substantive question of rights and obligation of the parties subsisting in the revenue record for a number of decades and presumption of truth is attachable to such a record. The claim of the respondents that the purported tenancy is subsisting for more than 30 years on the land in question, amounts to a challenge against the revenue record dating back to 30 years. Revenue record and entries subsisting for all these years cannot be brushed aside in a summary manner without any plausible evidence. It is a settled law that tenancy is a creature of contract and agreement between landowner and tenant. There is nothing on record to suggest such a proposition as to which landowner inducted which tenant on the land in question. The party claiming such a status has to prove the factum of such agreement and exclusive tenancy over the land and consequent entries in the record of right according thereto. The contention of the respondents that they are in exclusive possession of the land does not help their case because there is no other evidence which would show that the petitioners inducted them as tenants, much less by agreement and contract. In the result, the Assistant Collector and Collector have illegally ordered to record the respondents as tenants against the petitioner landowners. Therefore, the recommendations made by the learned Commissioner for setting aside these orders are accepted, though not wholly for the reasons recorded by him. Accordingly orders passed by Assistant Collector dated 16.11.96 and the order of Collector dated 28.8.97 are set-aside. 6. Orders be communicated to the parties and record be consigned to record room after due completion. Petition allowed.