JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J The judgment, decree dated 1.3.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No.235-S/13 of 1998, reversing Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes judgment, decree dated 30.11. 1998 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class (II), Shimla in Civil Suit No.182/1 of 95/93 has been assailed in second appeal. The suit was filed by Krishan Singh Rohal, Amrish Vijay Rohal, Niranjan Singh, Smt. Satya Devi, Nareshwar Singh Rohal, Smt. Pushpa, and Joginder Singh against State of H.P. and Collector. Some respondents have died and their legal representatives have been brought on record. In this judgment the parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants. 2. The facts in brief are that plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that the entries in revenue record in respect of land comprised in khasra Nos.43, 43/1, 265, 179, 294, 294/1, 281, 225, 331, 333, 593/327, 353, 354, 390, and 6, situated in Mauja Pateog (for short suit land) showing defendants as owners are wrong, illegal and do not affect the right, title or interest of the plaintiffs and other co-sharers as owners in possession of the suit land. 3. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land and some other land forming part of the same khatas as the suit land was owned and possessed by plaintiffs from very beginning. A portion of the khatas, of which the suit land is a part, was acquired by defendant No.1 and compensation was assessed. A part of the compensation was paid to the plaintiffs and other co-sharers and remaining part of compensation was ordered to be paid to defendant No.1 by Land Acquisition Collector, because the name of defendant No.1 was entered in the column of ownership. The plaintiffs and other-co-sharers made a reference to the learned District Judge and learned District Judge has held that the entries in the revenue papers showing the defendant No.1 as owner in respect of acquired land and land forming part of the khatas were illegal, void. The plaintiffs and other-co-sharers made a reference to the learned District Judge and learned District Judge has held that the entries in the revenue papers showing the defendant No.1 as owner in respect of acquired land and land forming part of the khatas were illegal, void. It was observed by learned District Judge that entries had figured in the revenue papers showing the State Government as owner on the basis of wrong orders passed by the Revenue Officers that the land had vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh under Section 27 of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 ( for short Act). 4. The said order was passed by learned District Judge on 24.11.1977 but even thereafter the Revenue Officer concerned did not change the entries in the revenue record in favour of the plaintiffs with respect to suit land. The plaintiffs approached the Assistant Collector Ist Grade (Rural), Shimla for correction of entries, he refused to make the change. In the year 1992, neighbour s of the plaintiffs damaged a portion of the suit land. The plaintiffs sued those neighbours. In the said suit, the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the owners of the suit land and their plea was upheld. 5. The defendants contested the suit. They raised several preliminary objections. The plea of maintainability, locus standi, no enforceable cause of action and limitation were taken. On merits the defendants did not deny that on a reference under the Land Acquisition Act, the learned District Judge held that the suit land and the land covered by the reference formed part of the same khata, the suit land did not fall within the purview of Section 27 (1) of the Act, hence not liable to vest in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The defendants did not challenge that the order of vestment of the plaintiffs’ land in the State of Himachal Pradesh, under the Act was held to be illegal and void. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit land? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 6. Relief. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit land? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 6. Relief. The issue No.1 was held in negative, issues No.2 to 5 in affirmative and the suit was dismissed on 30.11.1998. The plaintiffs filed appeal which was allowed by learned District Judge on 1.3.2000. the plaintiffs were declared owners in possession of the suit land and the entries in revenue record showing defendants as owners of the suit land were held wrong and liable to be corrected, hence second appeal by defendants which has been admitted on following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953? 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents as laid is barred by time? 3. Whether the suit to enforce a decree, the execution of which has become time barred, is maintainable? 7. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred under the Act. The learned District Judge has wrongly interpreted Section 27 of the Act. In the present case the land revenue exceeds Rs.125/-. Therefore, vestment of the suit land in the State of H.P. is legal. The contrary findings given by learned District Judge are wrong, illegal and liable to be set aside. The learned District Judge has wrongly held that suit is within limitation. The cause of action accrued to plaintiffs in the year 1962 when the mutation was attested in favour of State of Himachal Pradesh and again on 24.11.1977 when the compensation was granted in favour of plaintiffs by learned District Judge in reference petition. The suit was filed by plaintiffs on 12.5.1993. The suit filed by plaintiffs was not maintainable. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have supported the impugned judgment. They have submitted that mutation does not confer any title. Mere entry in the revenue record does not give arise to cause of action. The right to sue accrues when right asserted in the suit is infringed or threatened to be infringed. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have supported the impugned judgment. They have submitted that mutation does not confer any title. Mere entry in the revenue record does not give arise to cause of action. The right to sue accrues when right asserted in the suit is infringed or threatened to be infringed. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs within the limitation and maintainable nor the suit is barred under the Act. The learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned judgment, decree. 9. The above substantial questions of law No.1 to 3 are taken up collectively for determination. Section 92 of the Act provides that nothing in the Act shall affect the right of any person to establish his claim in respect of any land or part thereof by due process of law in the court having jurisdiction. The civil Court is the competent Court to determine the right of the affected person. It has not been pointed out under what provision of the Act, the suit is barred. It is not the case of defendants that rights of the parties were earlier determined by competent authority under the Act. The case of the appellants is mainly that suit land had vested in the State under the Act vide mutation Nos.54/55 dated 6.9.1962. The Section 9 of the Code provides that Courts subject to the provisions of the Code have jurisdiction to try the suit of civil nature excepting suit of which their cognizance either expressly or impliedly barred. The defendants from the Act have not shown how the suit under the Act is barred. Therefore, it can be safely held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not barred under the Act. The substantial question of law No.1 is decided against defendants/appellants. 10. The defendants in the written statement have admitted that Jeet Singh was owner of land comprised in khasra Nos. 16, 30, 43, 225, 321, 331, 353, 354, 390, 281, 282, 431, 294, 327, 333, 179 and 265 vide jamabandi 1959-60. They have also stated that suit land due to operation of the Act had vested in State of Himachal Pradesh vide mutation Nos.54/55 dated 6.9.1962. The learned Addl. District Judge vide judgment dated 24.11.1977 held that proprietary rights in favour of Govt. were agai nst law and facts. They have also stated that suit land due to operation of the Act had vested in State of Himachal Pradesh vide mutation Nos.54/55 dated 6.9.1962. The learned Addl. District Judge vide judgment dated 24.11.1977 held that proprietary rights in favour of Govt. were agai nst law and facts. It has been pleaded by defendants that Jeet Singh whose land had vested in the State under the Act never applied for change of ownership after judgment dated 24.11.1977. Janak Singh Rohal and Smt. Shanti Devi made an application dated 19.8.1988 before Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Shimla which were dismissed in default on 18.8.1990 and 25.10.1990. The defendants have also pleaded that judgment dated 24.11.1977 was not executed by plaintiffs through the competent Court of jurisdiction within a period of limitation. The suit is thus time barred. 11. Ex.DW-1/A is the copy of jamabandi for the year 1959-60 showing Jeet Singh owner in possession of land comprised in khasra Nos. 16, 30, 43, 225, 321, 331, 353, 354, 390, 281, 282, 279, 294/1, 327, 333, 43/1, 265, 179. In Ex.DW-1/A Dhumi, Bhagtiya have been shown tenants over khasra Nos.294, 62, 181, 182, 186, 293, 295. In Ex.DW-1/A the land revenue shown is less than `125. There are notes in Ex.DW-1/A showing vide mutation No.54 dated 22.9.1962 and mutation No.55, the land has vested in the State. Ex.PW-2/B is the copy of judgment dated 24.11.1977 in land reference Nos. 33-S/4 of 1977, 34-S/4 of 1977, 35-S/4 of 1977. The mutation No.55 of the year 1962 under Section 27 of the Act has been noticed in the judgment dated 24.11.1977. It has been held that proprietary rights in favour of Government were against law and facts. The petitioners were held to be the owners of the entire acquired land. 12. The sub section (1) of Section 27 of the Act provides that a landowner who holds land, having land revenue more than `125 per year, the right, title and interest of such owner in such land would vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The sub section (2) of Section 27 of the Act also provides that sub section (1) would not apply to land which was under the personal cultivation of the land owner. The land mentioned in jamabandi Ex.DW-1/A except khasra Nos.294, 62, 181, 182, 186, 293, 295, kita 7, total measuring 10-11 bighas was in possession of Jeet Singh. The sub section (2) of Section 27 of the Act also provides that sub section (1) would not apply to land which was under the personal cultivation of the land owner. The land mentioned in jamabandi Ex.DW-1/A except khasra Nos.294, 62, 181, 182, 186, 293, 295, kita 7, total measuring 10-11 bighas was in possession of Jeet Singh. In addition, the land revenue of the land shown in jamabandi Ex.DW-1/A is less than `125/-, therefore, it could not vest in the State under Section 27 of the Act. The mutations of vesting the suit land in favour of the State in the year 1962 were illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 13. The correction of the revenue entries of the suit land were not made in the revenue record even after the judgment dated 24.11.1977 Ex.PW-2/B when it was held that proprietary rights in favour of Govt. were against law and facts. The plaintiffs were held owners of the entire land. The plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against their neighbours on 13.6.1989. The said suit was decreed on 23.4.1992 by learned Sub Judge Ist Class (3), Shimla in case No.121/1/89 Ex.PW-2/C. In that suit also the plaintiffs were held owners in possession of the suit land. It has been pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiffs that cause of action is still continuing when the revenue entries were not corrected by the defendants despite several requests. 14. The substance of the suit is for declaration that plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land. The entries showing the State of Himachal Pradesh as owners are wrong. The Section 46 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1953 provides that if a person considers himself aggrieved as to any right, of which he is in possession, he may institute a suit for declaration of his right, under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. There is no dispute that possession of the suit land is with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are thus aggrieved by the revenue entries. 15. In Ajudh Raj and other vs. Moti, AIR 1991 SC 1600 , the defendant-respondent Moti before the Supreme Court allegedly was a sub-tenant cultivating the land, claimed the benefits under Section 27(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953. The plaintiffs are thus aggrieved by the revenue entries. 15. In Ajudh Raj and other vs. Moti, AIR 1991 SC 1600 , the defendant-respondent Moti before the Supreme Court allegedly was a sub-tenant cultivating the land, claimed the benefits under Section 27(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953. The claim of Moti was accepted, amount of compensation payable under Section 27(4) of the Act was determined by the Compensation Officer and consequential orders were passed in his favour. The suit was filed by Sham Sunder challenging the order on the allegation that Moti was merely a labourer employed by him and he never cultivated the suit land and he, therefore, was not entitled to the acquisition of the proprietary right under Section 27(4) of the Act. The trial Court, appellate Court, concurrently held that Moti was not a sub-tenant and the order passed by the Revenue Officer in his favour under Section 27(4) of the Act was without jurisdiction. The suit was decreed, plea of limitation was rejected, holding that Sham Sunder being the tenant in possession was entitled to the right under Section 27(4) of the Act. The High Court held that suit having been filed after a period of more than three years from the date of the order under Section 27(4) of the Act was barred by limitation and dismissed the suit. The Supreme Court held that if the order has been passed without jurisdiction, the same can be ignored as nullity, that is, non-existent in the eye of law and it is not necessary to set it aside, and such a suit will be covered by Article 65. 16. In Kanwar Bhawani Singh vs. State of H.P. and others 1994 (1) SLC 296, the learned Single Judge noticed Ajudh Raj (supra) and held that the order dated 21.3.1964 of Compensation Officer which was without jurisdiction, as it was passed in defiance to sub-section (2) of section 27 of the Act, the appellant-plaintiff being in self-cultivation, could be ignored as nullity by appellant-plaintiff and he could file suit within twelve years, as provided under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, on the basis of his title when his ownership and possession were challenged. 17. In Daya Singh and another vs. Gurdev Singh (dead) by LRs & Ors. 17. In Daya Singh and another vs. Gurdev Singh (dead) by LRs & Ors. 2010(1) CCC 290 (SC), it has been held that right to sue accrues when a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendants when they refused to admit the claim of the appellants i.e. only seven days before filing of the suit. The suit was filed within three years from the date of infringement and it cannot be held to be barred by limitation. In the present case the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. It has been pleaded in the plaint that cause of action is still continuing when the revenue entries were not corrected by the defendants despite several requests. The notice under Section 80 CPC was issued to the defendants on 22.10.1992. The service of notice has been admitted in the written statement by the defendants. The suit was filed on 12.5.1993, therefore, in view of Kanwar Bhawani Singh and Ajudh Raj (supra) it cannot be said that the suit was barred by limitation. The substantial question of law No.2 is decided against defendants/appellants. 18. The substantial question of law No.3 in fact does not emerge from the case set up by the defendants in the written statement. The defendants in the written statement have pleaded that the findings of learned Addl. District Judge are dated 24.11.1977, which has not been executed by plaintiffs through the competent court of jurisdiction within the period of limitation. In this context, the defendants have pleaded that they have taken the preliminary objection that the suit of the plaintiff is time barred. It has already been held above that the suit of the plaintiffs is within limitation. 19. There is no decree in favour of plaintiffs which has become time barred for want of execution. The judgment dated 24.11.1977 is award under the Land Acquisition Act. In the judgment dated 24.11.1977 the question of vestment of land in favour of State vide mutation Nos.54, 55 has been considered. In view of the case put up by the defendants that petitioners in that case were not entitled to any compensation as the land stood vested in favour of the State, it was held that vesting of land in favour of State under Section 27 of the Act is wrong, illegal and void. The petitioners were held entitled to compensation. 20. The petitioners were held entitled to compensation. 20. The present suit has arisen as defendants were wrongly shown owners of the suit land in the revenue record and they interfered over the suit land. The notice under Section 80 CPC was given to defendants but despite that revenue entries were not corrected and interference on the suit land of the plaintiffs was not stopped by the defendants. There was no decree in favour of the plaintiffs of the nature projected by defendants in the present suit. Therefore, there was no question of execution of decree and such decree having become time barred for want of execution. The suit has been filed by plaintiffs in their own right and is maintainable. The substantial question of law No.3 is decided against the defendants/appellants. 21. The learned District Judge has rightly appreciated the pleadings, evidence and law in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs after reversing the judgment of the learned trial Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the decree passed by learned District Judge is legal and no fault can be found with such decree. There is no merit in the appeal. 22. In view of above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.