JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, J.—The present appeal under Order 43 Rule l(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order (labeled as judgment) dated 21.1.1995 of the learned Additional District Judge, Una, whereby an appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1987 of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Una has been accepted with the finding that the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction in the matter and the plaint has been ordered to be returned. 2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be summed up thus. Daulat Ram (deceased) respondent (hereinafter called "the plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of certain property and that the entries showing the appellants, who were impleaded as defendants, as tenants in the revenue papers were wrong, illegal and contrary to the factual position prevailing on the spot. It was alleged that on the strength of the aforesaid wrong entries, the defendants, procured an order of mutation from a Settlement Officer conferring the rights of ownership upon them purportedly under the provisions of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act. The said order was alleged to have been passed behind the back of the plaintiff and without issuing any notice to him. It was also alleged that earlier in the year 1987 the defendants had filed a suit seeking issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction against the plaintiff, restraining him from causing any interference in the suit land and that that suit had been withdrawn and so the order of dismissal passed in that suit declining the prayer of the defendants, which was sought on the ground that the defendants were in possession of the suit land, was binding on them and the said order impliedly meant that the defendants were out of possession. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants on merits. Some preliminary objections were also raised. It was alleged that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction as the adjudication of the question whether a given person was a tenant or not, fell within the domain of the authorities constituted for the purpose of the H.R Tenancy & Land Reforms Act. 4. The learned Senior Sub Judge, after holding the trial, gave the finding that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction. 4. The learned Senior Sub Judge, after holding the trial, gave the finding that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction. It was also held that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit property and the entries showing the defendants as tenants were incorrect and wrong. Consequently, the suit was decreed. 5. An appeal was filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Sub Judge in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge who vide impugned order (judgment) held that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Chuhniya Devi v. Jindu Ram etc. [1991 (1) Sim.L.C. 223] and consequently accepted the appeal and ordered the return of plaint. It is against this order of return of plaint that the present appeal is directed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. One of the questions which were referred to the Full Bench in Chuhniya Devi v. Jindu Ram etc. [1991 (1) Sim. L.C. 223], was whether the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity or otherwise of an order of conferment of proprietary rights passed under Section 104 of the H.R Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, 1972, which had not been assailed under the provisions of the said Act. The Full Bench answered the question in the following terms:— "(b) the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into any question connected with the conferment of proprietary rights under Section 104 of the H.R Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, except in a case where it is found that the statutory authorities envisaged by that Act had not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or where the provisions of the Act had not been complied with." 8. While answering the aforesaid question, the Honble Full Bench made the following observations vide paras 39 and 40:— "39........It is implict in sub-section (4) of Section 104 that the Legislature envisaged that a dispute may arise whether a person cultivating the land of a landowner is a tenant or not, when proceedings were in progress under Chapter X, and provided that it shall be decided by the authorities contemplated under this Chapter who shall require the landowner to establish that a person cultivating his land is not a tenant. 40. Any enquiry by a Civil Court on the question was barred by the Legislature by specifically providing in Sections 112 and 115, both occurring in Chapter X, that the validity of any order made under the Chapter shall not be called in question in any court and that the order shall be final except as expressly provided in the Chapter. The Legislature knew its mind fully well. Where it wanted a dispute to be determined by the Civil Court, it provided so in Chapter X itself. One has only to look at Sections 107 and 109(2). Not only that the Legislature ruled out any determination by a Civil Court, by necessary implication, of other matters, it expressly said so in sections 112 and 115. (Emphasis supplied)" 9. In Shankar v. Smt. Rukmani and others, [2003 (1) Shim.L.C. 300] a Division Bench of this Court while construing the answer given by the Honble Full Bench to the aforesaid question in Chuhniya Devis case (supra), held as follows:— "9. After analyzing the judgment in Chuhniya Devi v. Jindu Rams case (supra), we have no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under the Act if the dispute pertaining to the relationship of landlord and tenant arises during the proceedings of conferment of proprietary rights upon the tenant and resumption of land by the land owner and the order in respect thereof has been passed by the authorities under the Act except in a case where it is found that the statutory authorities envisaged by that Act had not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or where the provisions of the Act had not been complied with. But if the dispute of landlord and tenant arises independent of the proceedings under the Act, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction. (Emphasis supplied)" 10. From the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, it is clear that the law declared by the Honble Full Bench in Chuhniya Devis case (supra) is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred only in those cases where a dispute arises as to the relationship of landlord and tenant, during the proceedings of conferment of proprietary rights upon a tenant and the resumption of land by the landowner and the order with respect to that dispute is passed by the authorities under the Act. In the present case, admittedly such a question did not arise in any proceedings regarding conferment of proprietary rights upon the tenant and the resumption of land by the landowner, under the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act. The mutation conferring proprietary rights upon the defendants was sanctioned by an Assistant Collector, II-Grade in the course of settlement operation. It is borne out from the record. Even that order of mutation has since been set aside by the higher Revenue authorities. Accordingly, it is held that since the question had not arisen in any proceedings under the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, before the authorities constituted under the said Act, the ruling of the Honble Full Bench in Chuhniya Devis case (supra) is not applicable. In other words, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction in the matter. 11. Consequently, the appeal is accepted. The impugned order (judgment) dated 21.1.1995 of the learned Additional District Judge, Una is set aside and the case, i.e. the appeal filed in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Una, is remanded with the direction that the appeal be heard and decided on merits. Appeal allowed. -