JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. 1. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner had instituted civil suit in the court of Sub Judge 1st Class (1), Kangra bearing Civil Suit No.134 of 1988 for declaration to the effect that he was in exclusive possession as co-owner over the land comprising Khata No. 120/min/110 Red Harra, Khatauni No. 228, Khasra No. 413 measuring 0-11-96 hectares. According to him, entry made in favour of respondent No.2 as Gair Maurushi tenant over this khasra number was contrary to the spot position. According to him, the same was liable to be changed in his favour. Suit was contested by respondent No.2. According to him, he was in possession of the suit land, including other khasra numbers and has become owner in possession of the suit land after the enactment of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Learned trial court framed the following issues on 16.11.1988: 1. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD. 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 6. Whether the defendant is in possession of the suit land since long and has become owner of the same by virtue of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reform Act? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the suit land as co-owner as alleged? OPP. 8. Whether the entry in favour of the defendant No.1 as Gair Marushi in the revenue record is unauthorized, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff as alleged? OPP. 8-A. Whether the suit is time barred and as such is liable to be dismissed OPD. 9. Relief. 2. Trial Court on issues No. 7 and 8 held that the petitioner has failed to prove the exclusive possession of the suit land and that the entry in the revenue record was illegal; unauthorized and was liable to be erased. These two issues were decided against the petitioner and in favour of respondent No.2. 9. Relief. 2. Trial Court on issues No. 7 and 8 held that the petitioner has failed to prove the exclusive possession of the suit land and that the entry in the revenue record was illegal; unauthorized and was liable to be erased. These two issues were decided against the petitioner and in favour of respondent No.2. As far as issue No.6 is concerned, learned Sub Judge 1st Class held that respondent No.2 was in possession of the suit land and has become owner by virtue of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Leaned Sub Judge 1st Class dismissed the suit preferred by the petitioner on 31.7.1990. He preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra bearing Civil Appeal No. 75/1991. The same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 28.4.1993. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application before the Land Reforms Officer, Kangra on 26.10.1994. The same was transferred to the L.R.O. Shahpur in the year 1997. He passed the order in favour of the petitioner on 27.9.1999 vide Annexure P-1. Petitioner had also filed Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.4.1993 bearing R.S.A. No. 219/1993. The same was dismissed by this Court on 3.11.1999. 3. It will be pertinent to note at this stage that on the basis of order passed by the L.R.O. Shahpur dated 27.9.1999, mutation No. 826 was attested in favour of the petitioner on 28.12.1999. Respondent No.2 preferred an appeal assailing the order dated 27.9.1999 and attestation of mutation on 28.12.1999 before the Collector (A.D.M.) by appeal No. 118/2000. The same was allowed by him on 8.7.2002. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner by way of appeal No. 193/2002. The Divisional Commissioner dismissed the same on 28.9.2010. The revision preferred by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) bearing Revision Petition No. 29/2011 was also dismissed on 3.6.2011. 4. Mr. Sanjay Jaswal has strenuously argued that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 3.6.2011 is contrary to law. He has supported the order passed by the L.R.O. dated 27.9.1999 on the basis of which mutation was attested on 28.12.1999. He then argued that the civil court had no jurisdiction to go into the matter and the L.R.O. was within his jurisdiction to order the change in the revenue record. 5. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. He then argued that the civil court had no jurisdiction to go into the matter and the L.R.O. was within his jurisdiction to order the change in the revenue record. 5. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Abhishek Barowalia have supported the order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 3.6.2011. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 7. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that the proprietary rights were conferred upon respondent No.2. Entries to this effect were made in the revenue record. Petitioner had filed civil suit No. 13/1988 assailing the revenue entries showing respondent No.2 as Gair Maurusi tenant. Learned trial court had framed the issues, as discussed hereinabove. Issues No.6, 7 and 8 were decided against the petitioner and it was held that the revenue entries were correct and respondent No.2 was owner in possession of the suit property. Civil suit was dismissed on 31.7.1990 and the appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 28.4.1993. It is only when the petitioner was unsuccessful before the civil court; he moved an application before the L.R.O. seeking change in the revenue record. The same was decided by the L.R.O. on 27.9.1999. It will also be appropriate at this stage to take note that the Regular Second Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 28.4.1993 was also dismissed by this Court on 3.11.1999. The Collector (A.D.M.) vide order dated 8.7.2002 has taken into consideration the judgments passed by the civil courts, including the judgment of this court dated 3.11.1999. Order passed by the Collector (A.D.M.) is reasoned and self-speaking. Similarly, the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra and Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh are in conformity with law. Learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly observed that the civil court has already adjudicated the matter qua the tenancy of respondent No.2. He has also come to the right conclusion that the judgments and decrees passed by the civil courts are binding on the revenue courts. The L.R.O. knew about the pendency of the civil case between the parties and despite that he has passed the order on 27.9.1999 leading to attestation of mutation on 28.12.1999. He has also come to the right conclusion that the judgments and decrees passed by the civil courts are binding on the revenue courts. The L.R.O. knew about the pendency of the civil case between the parties and despite that he has passed the order on 27.9.1999 leading to attestation of mutation on 28.12.1999. Learned Sub Judge 1st Class had already decided the civil suit against the petitioner on 31.7.1990 and the same was affirmed by the first appellate court on 28.4.1993. 8. Mr. Sanjay Jaswal has placed strong reliance on judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 1979 P.L.J. 352. The ratio of this judgment will not apply in the present case. Rather, what has been stated in this judgment is that once the status of the parties is finally determined by the civil court, whether a person was tenant or not, will be binding and over rides the findings of the revenue authorities. In the instant case, learned Civil Judge had already dismissed the suit of the petitioner on 31.7.1990 and the appeal was also dismissed by the first appellate court on 28.4.1993. The judgment and decree passed by both the courts below were binding on the revenue officer. The findings returned by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class are that respondent No.2 was the tenant and the entry to this effect made in the revenue record was correct. 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.