ORDER (P. Mitra, F.C.) - This is an appeal against the decision dated 25.9.2001 of the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra district (exercising the powers of Commissioner). Since this is no provision for appeal under Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, this was treated as revision under Section 17 of the Act ibid. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Dharamshala had attested mutation No. 509 on 20.12.1989 in respect of conferment of proprietary rights under Section 104(3) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 upon one Shri Kali Dass who was recorded as non-occupancy tenant under S/Shri Khemdi, Isher, Parshotam, Smt. Sati, Smt. Savitri and Shri Godan (hereinafter called Shri Khemdi Etc.) co-owners of the land in dispute. In fact the land in dispute was owned by some others also apart from Shri Khemdi Etc. After the death of Shri Kali Dass, another mutation No. 514 was attested on 19.1.1990 by the Assistant Collector transferring the ownership of Shri Kali Dass’s land in favour of his mother Smt. Keshari Devi, appellant No. 2 by way of inheritance. 3. Later the mutation No. 509 was reviewed (after obtaining required permission) and re-attested on 29.9.1992 and the proprietary rights were conferred upon Shri Kali Dass in respect of more land to coincide with all the land with him as tenant. Aggrieved by this, the present respondents had filed an appeal before the ADM, Kangra (exercising the powers of Collector) who partly allowed the appeal vide order dated 31.12.1996 holding that proprietary rights in respect of additional land cannot be conferred on Shri Kali Dass from the land of another co-sharers namely Shri Gorkhu because Shri Kali Dass was recorded as tenant over the share of Shri Khemdi Etc. and not other likes Shri Gorkhu. The present petitioners had thereafter filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (exercising powers of Commissioner) who upheld the ADM’s i.e. Collector’s order. Not satisfied with the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, the present petitioners have filed this appeal/revision. 4. and not other likes Shri Gorkhu. The present petitioners had thereafter filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (exercising powers of Commissioner) who upheld the ADM’s i.e. Collector’s order. Not satisfied with the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, the present petitioners have filed this appeal/revision. 4. During arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that this was an appeal under Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act which may be treated as revision heard/decided by the Sub Judge Kangra on 5.6.1997 which concluded that the mutation No. 509 in favour of Shri Kali Dass was wrong/illegal; the petitioners had thereafter appealed to the District Judge who set aside the judgment of the lower Court on 16.12.1999. Shri Gorkhu then went to the Hon’ble High Court which dismissed his RSA. Thus the High Court had accepted the position of the petitioners. The mutation in favour of Kali Dass was valid as ownership rights stood automatically transferred under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. On the other hand, the Commissioner has totally ignored the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court. Learned Counsel drew attention to the well established law that the judgment of the civil courts will prevail. Secondly there is no time limit involved in such cases which are governed by the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent stated that Shri Kali Dass had been entered as tenant only of some owners but not all and especially not under the respondent Shri Gorkhu Ram. According to learned Counsel, the entire case is whether Shri Kali Dass could have become owner when he was not a tenant of the respondent Gorkhu Ram. Shri Kali Dass was never inducted as a tenant by Shri Gorkhu Ram; Shri Kali Dass was never in actual possession of the land. There is a categorical findings that Shri Gorkhu never inducted Shri Kali Dass as tenant. This is purely a question of fact. The decisions of Collector and the Commissioner are in consonance with the law. The review of mutation No. 509 is bad in law. Learned Counsel therefore prayed that the revision may be rejected. 6. In rebuttal, learned Counsel reiterated the points taken by him earlier. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record and the appeal. The review of mutation No. 509 is bad in law. Learned Counsel therefore prayed that the revision may be rejected. 6. In rebuttal, learned Counsel reiterated the points taken by him earlier. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record and the appeal. The main controversy in this case is regarding mutation No. 509 first attested on 29.12.1989 by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade Dharmshala. This was in respect of conferment of proprietary rights upon Shri Kali Dass tenant in respect of Khasra No. 1147, 1148 and 1149 of mauja Upperli Barol, Tehsil Dharamshala. This mutation was restricted to the share of Shri Khemdi Etc. who had inducted Shri Kali Dass as tenant. On review, Shri Kali Dass was recorded as owner of more land i.e. land falling in the share of Shri Gorkhu (present respondent No. 1) also. Shri Gorkhu had challenged this new mutation in appeal before the Collector on the ground that he had never inducted Shri Kali Dass as tenant and therefore Shri Kali Dass could not become owner in respect of his share of the land. The Collector vide order dated 31.12.1996 set aside the review order holding that Shri Kali Dass was not entered as a tenant of Shri Gorkhu and remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector for recording possession as owner of the share of Shri Khemdi Etc. only with others were to be recorded as self cultivating. This order was challenged by the present petitioners in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (exercising the powers of Commissioner) who upheld the order of the Collector. 8. The jamabandi for the year 1987-88 records that Shri Kali Dass was tenant through Shri Khemdi Etc. and inference was drawn from this that Shri Kali Dass would become owner in respect of the share of these persons only. The H.P. Land Reforms and Tenancy Act, 1972 however does not envisage anything of this sort. It’s Section 104(3) envisages the extinguishment of all rights, title and interests of a land owner and conferment of all such rights, title and interests on the non-occupancy tenant. The Legislature has used the word ‘landlord’ in the applicable section; however the Legislature was fully aware that land is often owned by more than one person and in such a case, all the persons are co-owners. The Legislature has used the word ‘landlord’ in the applicable section; however the Legislature was fully aware that land is often owned by more than one person and in such a case, all the persons are co-owners. The word ‘landlord’ therefore has to be understood in its plural sense covering all the co-owners. Shri Kali Dass was a tenant over a piece of the land i.e. three Khasra Nos. 1147, 1148 and 1149 and would therefore become the owner of the entire land with him under tenancy. Since the tenant was inducted by Shri Khemdi Etc., their share would go fully but in respect of the land under tenancy in excess of the share of Shri Khemdi Etc., all other co-owners including Shri Gorkhu will suffer extinguishment of rights, title and interest in proportion to their respective shares in the land. Needless to say, Shri Gorkhu alone will not suffer such extinguishment. 9. In view of the above discussion and as far as the present petition is concerned, the ADM and the Deputy Commissioner are found to have not correctly applied the law. According the petition is allowed and the order dated 31.12.1996 of the ADM (as Collector) and order dated 25.9.2001 of the Deputy Commissioner (as Commissioner) are set aside. 10. Announced in open court today on 30.6.2009 at Shimla. 11. Record of the courts below be returned and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion. M.R.B. ———————