ORDER Ravi Dhingra, IAS.—This is a revision petition under Section 114(3) read with Section 65 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 preferred by S/Shri Chet Ram and Daulat Ram LRs of Shri Budhi Ram (deceased) residents of village Tepra, Pargana Bahadurpur, Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Bilaspur, and is directed against the order dated 26.9.2002 passed by the Commissioner (Revenue) H.P. in a case No. 139/2000 whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioners against the order dated 30.9.2000 of the Distt. Collector, Bilaspur, was dismissed. 2. In brief, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners filed an application on 15.11.1978 for correction of revenue entries before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade (Naib-Tehsildar) Bilaspur seeking correction of record to the effect that he is a non-occupancy tenant on the disputed land. This application was allowed on 31.5.1979 directing that he may be entered in the record of rights as a non-occupancy tenant in lieu of a rent amounting to 1/4 of the produce. On appeal before the Sub-Divisional Collector, the order of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade was set-aside on 11.9.1980 directing the parties to file a suit for declaration holding that proper procedure was not adopted by the lower court and that was there no proof to show that there was a relationship of a landlord and tenant between the present defendant and the present petitioners. It was further ordered that the entires in the revenue record being in favour of the present defendants, there is a presumption of truth attached to the same and that if he was aggrieved by any entry in the record of rights, the proper remedy would be a suit for declaration in a civil court. 3. The present petitioners filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla who on 20.4.1982 who ruled that the present respondents were deprived of an opportunity of being heard before the Assistant Collector, II Grade. It was also observed that the Collector had mentioned that the orders of the Assistant Collector Grade-I deserve to be set-aside. He, however, remanded the case back to the Collector to hear the matter de-novo. 4. The Collector, vide, order dated 31.10.1985 held that an owner-tenant relationship has not been established and consequently dismissed the remanded appeal after hearing it "de-novo". 5. These orders were challenged before the Distt. He, however, remanded the case back to the Collector to hear the matter de-novo. 4. The Collector, vide, order dated 31.10.1985 held that an owner-tenant relationship has not been established and consequently dismissed the remanded appeal after hearing it "de-novo". 5. These orders were challenged before the Distt. Collector who on 9.3.1989 held that he had no jurisdiction to hear the case and returned the same to be presented before the Divisional Commissioner Mandi. 6. The Divisional Commissioner Mandi decided the same on 11.3.1997 holding that the Collector had passed orders dated 31.10.1985 as a Land Reforms Officer and therefore an appeal against the same lies to the Collector. 7. The present petitioners filed an application of restoration and revival of the earlier case, disposed of by the Distt. Collector on 9.3.1989 consequent to the directions of the Divisional Commissioner, in his order dated 11.3.1997. 8. The Distt. Collector, Bilaspur dismissed the application order dated 30.9.2000 holding that the orders passed by his predecessor on 9.3.1989 had not been set-aside by the Divisional Commissioner and that a matter in which an order has been passed on merits cannot be restored until there is a specific direction from a higher Court. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Revenue) who also dismissed the same on 26.9.2002 while upholding the order of the Collector dated 30.9.2000. Hence the petitioners have now filed revision petition. 9. On 25.10.2002 a status quo was granted by this court in the matter although the respondents had filed a caveat which was not brought to the notice of the court. When the same came to the notice, this court passed an order on 22.11.2002 ordering the status quo granted on 25.10.2002 to be held in abeyance. The petitioners filed a Writ Petition against the same in the Honble High Court. The Honble High Court vide order dated 11.3.2003, received in this Court on 2/3.4.2003, directed this court to dispose off the matter within three months of the receipt of the said orders. 10. Shri Bimal Gupta, learned Counsel for petitioners has argued that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and after him, the present , petitioners have been forced to repeatedly approach various courts on the question of jurisdiction. 10. Shri Bimal Gupta, learned Counsel for petitioners has argued that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and after him, the present , petitioners have been forced to repeatedly approach various courts on the question of jurisdiction. He has contended that the Assistant Collector II Grade had, vide order dated 31.5.1979, allowed the application of the petitioners for correction of revenue entries and had ordered his name to be incorporated as a non-occupancy tenant. This order was challenged by the present respondents before the Collector who set-aside the order of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade on 11.9.1980. He filed an appeal before the Commissioner Shimla, Division who ordered the matter to be heard de-novo. The counsel for petitioners further claimed that thereafter, the main issue of correction of the revenue entry sought by him has been pushed to the back ground and every court henceforth has been tossing the matter on the question of jurisdiction. He prayed that the matter of jurisdiction be settled and the case be remanded to be heard by the competent authority. 11. The learned Counsel for the respondents, Shri Pawan Kaprate, Advocate has argued that the petitioner initially sought to get himself entered as a non-occupancy tenant by preferring an application before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade for correction of Girdawari entries and succeeded in obtaining the impugned orders dated 31.5.1979. The respondents filed an appeal before the Collector who has rightly set aside the order of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade vide order dated 11.9.1980. The learned Counsel further contended that the petitioners have thereafter sought remedies in various courts without forming a clear idea whether he wishes for a correction of revenue entry under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 or he seeks the status of a tenant under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The subsequent orders passed by various courts on the issue of jurisdiction were hence rightly passed. 12. I have heard the arguments put forth and have perused the record of the lower courts. It is firstly to be clarified whether the matter under dispute pertains to a claim of tenancy or that of a correction of revenue entry falling within the purview of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954. 13. 12. I have heard the arguments put forth and have perused the record of the lower courts. It is firstly to be clarified whether the matter under dispute pertains to a claim of tenancy or that of a correction of revenue entry falling within the purview of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954. 13. The relevant provision of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act are the sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 104 of the Act ibid which reads as follows:— "Sub-section 3 All rights, title and interest (including a contigent interest, if any) of a landowner other than a landowner entitled to resume land under sub-section (1) shall be extinguished and all such rights, title and interest shall with effect from the date to be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette vest in the tenant free from all encumbrances : Provided that if a tenancy is created after the commencement of this Act, the provision of this sub-section shall apply immediately after the creation of such tenancy. Sub-section -4 Whenever a dispute arises whether a person cultivating the land of a landowner, is a tenant or not, the burden of proving that such a person is not a tenant of the landowner shall be on the latter." Section 37 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 is as follows: — Section 37. Determination of Dispute "Sub-section-1. If during the making, revision or preparation of any record or in the course of any enquiry under this chapter a dispute arises as to any matter of which an entry is to be made in a record or in a register of mutation, a Revenue Officer may of his own motion or on the application of any party interested, but subject to the provisions of the next following section, and after such enquiry as he thinks fit, determine the entry to be made as to that matter. Sub-section-2. Sub-section-2. If in any such dispute the Revenue Officer is unable to satisfy himself as to which of the parties thereto is in possession of any property to which the dispute relates, he shall ascertain through the Gram Panchayat constituted under (the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1968) or any other agency so prescribed by the Financial Commissioner or by summary inquiry who is the person best entitled to the property, and shall by order direct that person be put in possession thereof and that an entry in accordance with that order be made in the record or register." The competent authority to adjudicate on disputes arising under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act is the land Reforms Officer The provision for appeal and revision in such a case is envisaged in Section 114 of the Act ibid which reads as follows :— "Sub-section. (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Land Reforms Officer may, within thirty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Collector, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed: Provided that the Collector may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Sub-section-(2). Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Commissioner in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that the Commissioner may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Sub-section- (3). With respect to all matters dealt with under this Chapter, the Financial Commissioner shall have the same powers to call for, examine and revise the proceedings of the Land Reforms Officer, or the Collector or the Commissioner as provided in Section 65 of this Act.” 14. It would be appropriate to point out here that the petitioner initially filed an application for "correction of revenue entries" claiming to be in cultivating possession of the disputed land since 8-9 years as a non-occupancy tenant in lieu of rent to the extent of half of the produce. It would be appropriate to point out here that the petitioner initially filed an application for "correction of revenue entries" claiming to be in cultivating possession of the disputed land since 8-9 years as a non-occupancy tenant in lieu of rent to the extent of half of the produce. He has sought to challenge the entries of the Jamabandi which carry a presumption of truth but at the same time has not rebutted the impugned entries. He has tried to get himself incorporated as a non-occupancy tenant by way of a correction in the Khasra Girdawari. The Khasra Girdawari is a register in which the changes taking place from one harvest inspection to the other are entered and are incorporated after proper inquiry and verification by a competent Revenue Officer. The Khasra Girdawari, is a record relevant to harvest inspections and only current entries are indicated. If a person seeks a correction in the Girdawari entry, the same has to be sought under Section 37 of H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 and in case the same is allowed its effect is prospective. This, in no manner effects the entries of the previous Jamabandi, which have to be rebutted in a competent court of law. The entries incorporated in a Khasra Girdawari find place in the subsequent Jamabandi. The petitioner has apparently sought to get himself incorporated as a tenant by invoking the provisions contained in the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 which is erroneous. To seek such a relief, the process envisaged under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 has to be followed. 15. The present respondents filed an appeal under Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 before the Collector against the impugned order of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade dated 31.5.1979 which was heard and disposed of accordingly on 11.9.1980. The orders of the Collector are self speaking. She has touched the aspects of both the tenant owner relationship as well as the presumption attached with the entries of the Jamabandi. Her decision is hence based on the principles laid down in law. The petitioners challenged these orders before the Commissioner, Shimla Division who, while holding that the orders of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade deserve to be set-aside, remanded back the case to the Collector for de-novo inquiry. Her decision is hence based on the principles laid down in law. The petitioners challenged these orders before the Commissioner, Shimla Division who, while holding that the orders of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade deserve to be set-aside, remanded back the case to the Collector for de-novo inquiry. In fact, the Collector had already set-aside the order of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade and there was no reason to remand the case back for a tie novo inquiry. The order of the Commissioner, Shimla Division nowhere discusses the reasons which necessitated the remanding of the matter when he himself has accepted that the order of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade deserves to be set-aside. However, the Collector heard the matter de-novo and again dismissed the claim of the petitioners on 31.10.1985. These orders were challenged by the petitioners in an appeal under Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 before the Distt. Collector who on 9.3.1989 rightly held that he has no jurisdiction to adjudicate in the matter, as an appeal against an order of a Collector under the H.R Land Revenue Act, 1954 cannot be filed before a Collector. The proper forum to file such an appeal is before the Commissioner. Consequent to these orders, the present petitioner filed an appeal under Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 before the Commissioner, Mandi Division, challenging the order passed by the Collector on 31.10.1985. The Commissioner Mandi Division while adjudicating upon the matter, ruled that "The Sub-Divisional Collector Sadar Bilaspur had tried the case as a Land Reforms Officer though he has not mentioned this in his order as such which appears to be clerical mistake." He further ruled that when the case was entrusted to the Sub-Divisional Collector by his predecessor, proper procedure was required to be followed to enquire into the plea of the petitioner whether he was in cultivating possession (of the disputed land) or not. The matter, according to him, is the outcome of creating a tenancy and hence is not covered under Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act but it should have been filed under the Section 114 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The matter, according to him, is the outcome of creating a tenancy and hence is not covered under Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act but it should have been filed under the Section 114 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. He consequently decided that the orders passed by the Collector on 31.10.1985 were in the capacity of a trial Court as a Land Reforms Officer and hence the appeal should have been made to the Collector under sub-section (1) of Section 114 of the H.R Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Consequently he dismissed the appeal as not maintainable on 11.3.1997. 16. It needs to be examined here whether order of the Commissioner, Mandi Division, dated 11.3.1997 was based on the legal provisions discussed by him in his said order. He drew the conclusion that the Collector had heard the matter as a Land Reforms Officer as the dispute pertained to tenancy and the orders passed by the latter on 31.10.1985 were as a trial Court. However, it is clear from the records that the matter was heard by the Collector consequent to a remand order of the Commissioner wherein he has himself ruled that the order of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade dated 31.5.1979 deserve to be set-aside. Had he intended that the matter should have been heard by the Land Reforms Officer, he could have so directed in his order. However, he chose to remand the case back to the Collector who heard the matter in appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade which was the trial Court in this case. Subsequently, the petitioner sought to restore the matter before the Distt. Collector who vide order dated 30.9.2000 dismissed the same as did the Commissioner (Revenue) who vide order dated 26.9.2002 upheld the order of the Collector dated 30.9.2000. 17. From the above discussion it can be clearly inferred that the petitioner had sought to get himself inducted as a tenant over the disputed land by filing an application for correction of Girdawari entries over the disputed land. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade, allowed the same and ordered that the petitioner be recorded in the Girdawari as a non occupancy tenant in lieu of a rent equal to one fourth of the produce. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade, allowed the same and ordered that the petitioner be recorded in the Girdawari as a non occupancy tenant in lieu of a rent equal to one fourth of the produce. It is reiterated that a dispute under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, is to the adjudicated upon by a Land Reforms Officer. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade ought to have judged whether he was competent to adjudicate upon the relief of being incorporated as tenant as sought by the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner chose to seek his inductment as a tenant through an entry in the Khasra Girdawari and not by seeking such a relief before the Land Reforms Officer under the relevant provisions of law, is the reason that he has failed to get relief from any of the authorities who adjudicated upon the matter. The petitioner sought to get himself recorded as being in cultivating possession of the disputed land as a tenant by agitating the matter before an authority who was not competent to adjudicate upon the same. Not only this he has throughout tried to press his claim under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 while now coming up in revision under the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The matter regarding his claim as to being in cultivating possession over the disputed land has been inquired into by the Collector as an appellate authority and his claim has been dismissed on merits vide orders dated 11.9.1980 and again on 31.10.1985. 18. It is pertinent to mention that the orders of the Collector dated 31.10.1985 have not been set-aside by any authority thereafter and the matter was only adjudicated on the question of jurisdiction. Even before this Court, the petitioner has sought the setting aside of the order of the Commissioner (Revenue) dated 26.9.2002 and remanding the case back to a competent authority. For this reason the said orders dated 31.10.1985 have attained finality. 19. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is dismissed. 20. Orders be communicated to the parties and case file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion. -