JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 02.12.2004, passed by the learned District Judge, Una (H.P.) in Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2004. 2. 'Key facts' necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs' for the sake of convenience) filed a civil suit against the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant' for the sake of convenience), for declaration to the effect that land measuring 34 Kanal 6 Marlas, comprised in Khewat No. 106 min, Khatauni No. 478 min, at present Khasra No. 2851, situate in Village Mairi, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P., is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and the change in the revenue entries in the name of the defendant earlier as non-occupancy tenant and thereafter mutation No. 2440 of conferment of proprietary rights upon the defendant is wrong, illegal and has been made without following the proper procedure, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs, raising any sort of construction and cutting trees from the suit land. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and the defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit land. The defendant has got the revenue entries changed in his favour as non-occupancy tenant and thereafter, on the basis of said change, he got sanctioned mutation, whereby the proprietary rights stood sanctioned in his favour in violation of he procedure. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, he was in possession of the suit land previously as tenant and now as owner after the commencement of the H.P. Tenancy & Land Reforms Act. It has been specifically alleged in para No. 2 of the written statement by the defendant that he was tenant under Smt. Devki, who had also executed the rent receipts in his favour. The previous entries were wrongly coming in the name of the owner as Khud Kasht, which was against the factual position on the spot. He moved an application before the Land Reforms Officer (LRO), who after making due inquiry regarding the facts on the spot, passed the correction order in his favour. The father of the plaintiffs voluntarily made a statement admitting the tenancy and possession. He moved an application before the Land Reforms Officer (LRO), who after making due inquiry regarding the facts on the spot, passed the correction order in his favour. The father of the plaintiffs voluntarily made a statement admitting the tenancy and possession. According to him, the proprietary rights have been conferred upon him under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. 4. The plaintiffs filed the replication. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1, Amb, District Una, H.P. framed the issues on 20.02.2002. He dismissed the suit on 30.04.2004. The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Una, H.P. He allowed the same on 02.12.2004. The suit was decreed for declaration to the effect that the land measuring 34 Kanal 6 Marlas, comprised in Khewat No. 106 min, Khatauni No. 478 min, at present Khasra No. 2851, situate in Village Mairi, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P., is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and the change in the revenue entries in the name of the defendant earlier as non-occupancy tenant and thereafter mutation No. 2440 of conferment of proprietary rights upon the defendant is wrong, illegal and has been made without following proper procedure and a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs, raising any sort of construction and cutting trees from the suit land was also passed with costs. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 05.01.2005: "1. Whether the learned lower appellate court was right in decreeing the suit without reversing the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on issue No.5 holding the suit to be barred by limitation. 2. Whether the learned lower appellate court was right in holding that civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit by placing reliance upon judgment reported in 2002 (1) S.L.C. Page 49." 5. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has supported the judgment and decree, dated 30.04.2004, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1, Amb, District Una, H.P. According to him, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. He also argued that the suit was barred by limitation. 6. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate has supported the judgment and decree, dated 02.12.2004, passed by the learned District Judge, Una, H.P. 7. He also argued that the suit was barred by limitation. 6. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate has supported the judgment and decree, dated 02.12.2004, passed by the learned District Judge, Una, H.P. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 8. According to the Misal Hakiat for 1984-85, Ex. P-1, the plaintiffs were shown as owners in possession of old Khasra No. 3598 min, new Khasra No. 2851, measuring 34 Kanal, 6 Marlas. According to this Jamabandi, Sh. Parmeshwari Dass, father of the plaintiffs has been recorded as owner of ? share in the Khata, whereas plaintiffs are recorded as owners of ? share and the suit land is recorded as Khud Kasht Ba Makbuza, i.e., owned and possessed by the owners. The plaintiffs inherited the estate after the death of their father Shri Parmeshwari Dass. According to the Jamabandi for the year 1968-69, Ex. P-2, Khasra No. 3598 is recorded as measuring 146 Kanal, 15 Marlas and Smt. Devki, widow of Lachman Dass has been recorded as co-owner to the extent of ? share out of 1/12 share. Thus, the share of Devki as per Jamabandi Ex. P-2 in the joint Khata was 1/12 X ?= 1/36, which comes out to 4 Kanals 10 Marlas. The estate of Smt. Devki was inherited by Parmeshwari Dass, father of the plaintiffs vide mutation No. 1733 as is clear from the remarks column of Ex. P-2, copy of Jamabandi for the year 1968-69. The plaintiffs have also inherited the estate of Jaishi Ram, co-owner in the Khata vide mutation No. 1337 as per Ex. P-2. 9. PW-1, Shri Brham Parkash has testified that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land measuring 34 Kanals 6 Marlas. The defendant has no concern with the suit land. The defendant was never inducted as Gair Maurousi tenant by them or by their predecessors-in-interest. The defendant has never paid any rent to them. The nature of the land is forest (jungle). The defendant, in connivance with revenue department, has got the entries changed in his favour. The plaintiffs were not heard at the time of sanctioning the mutation. The proper procedure has not been followed at the time of sanctioning the mutation in favour of the defendant. 10. The nature of the land is forest (jungle). The defendant, in connivance with revenue department, has got the entries changed in his favour. The plaintiffs were not heard at the time of sanctioning the mutation. The proper procedure has not been followed at the time of sanctioning the mutation in favour of the defendant. 10. PW-2, Shri Sanjeev Kumar has deposed that the file relating to the case titled Ravinder Pal v. Parmeshwari Dass was destroyed on 30.04.1991. According to him, it is not mentioned in his register that by whose order the file was destroyed. To the similar effect is the statement of DW-1, Sh. Joginder Lal, Clerk, Record Room Una, District Una, H.P. 11. DW-2, Shri Ravinder Pal has deposed that he was in possession of the suit land. He was paying rent to the plaintiffs. Parmeshwari Dass used to issue receipts to him. He has filed an application before the Naib Tehsildar for correction of revenue entries. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the disputed land was not taken on Chakota in his presence. He has paid Chakota to Shri Parmeshwari Dass for the last time in 1988. He has also admitted that he has not paid Chakota in the presence of any person. He volunteered that Parmeshwari Dass used to come to their house for collection of Chakota. He has also deposed that the inquiry was made by the Kanungo alongwith the Tehsildar on the spot. Shri Parmeshwari Dass, father of the plaintiff has made the statement and signed the same in Urdu. DW-4, Sh. Karam Chand has identified the signatures of Shri Parmeshwari Dass on mark 'X'. 12. As per the written statement, the case of the defendant was that he was inducted as a tenant by Smt. Devki Devi and she used to issue receipts, but the defendant has not produced any receipts. Smt. Devki Devi, as discussed hereinabove, was owner of only 4 Kanals 10 Marlas and this land was also inherited by Shri Parmeshwari Dass, father of the plaintiffs vide mutation No. 1733, as is clear from the remarks column of Ex. P-2, copy of Jamabandi for the year 1968-69. The defendant has not led any tangible evidence to prove the payment of rent. The tenancy is a bilateral act. The defendant has also not produced any revenue record to establish that he was paying rent to the plaintiffs. P-2, copy of Jamabandi for the year 1968-69. The defendant has not led any tangible evidence to prove the payment of rent. The tenancy is a bilateral act. The defendant has also not produced any revenue record to establish that he was paying rent to the plaintiffs. The application has been filed by the defendant before the Naib Tehsildar (Settlement). There is nothing on record to suggest that the Naib Tehsildar has sent the file to the LRO, exercising the powers of A.C. 1st Grade. According to the defendant, the statement of Shri Parmeshwari Dass was recorded by the Reader to the Naib Tehsildar (Settlement), but he has not produced the Reader, who has recorded the statement of Shri Parmeshwari Dass. Mark-X does not bear any date. The document has not been proved as per law. There is nothing on record to suggest that the file was referred to Naib Tehsildar for inquiry on the spot. The defendant in correction application has alleged payment of rent of Rs. 50/-, whereas in Ex. D-2, payment of Galla Batai has been mentioned. 13. The plaintiff, Brahm Parkash while appearing as PW-1, has categorically denied the suggestion that during the settlement operation, his father has made a statement before the revenue officer that the defendant was tenant over the suit land. The plaintiff was not confronted with the admission mark-X by the defendant during the course of cross-examination nor handwriting of Parmeshwari Dass was put to the plaintiff as Parmeshwari Dass has died at the time when the statement of plaintiff was recorded. The document mark-X has also not been executed in accordance with law. Though as per Misal Hakiat Ex. D-1, the proprietary rights have been conferred upon the defendant vide mutation No. 2440, dated 16.10.1995, but the same is without authority of law. The Naib Tehsildar (Settlement) was not competent to confer the proprietary rights. In fact, as already noticed, the application itself has been filed before the Naib Tehsildar (Settlement). 14. The plea of limitation was never raised by the defendant before the 1st Appellate Court. The order, Ex. D-2, was without authority of law and was nonest. The only submission made by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant before the 1st Appellate Court was that the order, Ex. 14. The plea of limitation was never raised by the defendant before the 1st Appellate Court. The order, Ex. D-2, was without authority of law and was nonest. The only submission made by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant before the 1st Appellate Court was that the order, Ex. D-2, has been passed by the Revenue Officer in accordance with law and the same has not been assailed by the plaintiffs before the higher authorities. The other point urged by the learned Advocate Sh. O.P. Verma before the 1st Appellate Court was that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. 15. The revenue entries were also in favour of the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest at the time when the order, Ex. D-2 was passed. 16. Now, as far as the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court is concerned, it would be apt to reproduce paragraph No. 64 of the judgment rendered by this Court in Chuhniya Devi v. Jindu Ram 1991 (1) Sim. L.C. 223. "64. We have attempted to do it in the present case and have come to the conclusion that the Legislature has envisaged a complete Code in the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, inter alia, for effectuating its purpose of land reforms and has ruled out determination of any question connected therewith by the Civil Court. The Answer Our answer, therefore, is: (a) that an order made by the competent authority under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, is open to challenge before a civil court to the extent that it relates to matters falling within the ambit of section 37 (3) and section 46 of that Act; and (b) the civil court has no jurisdiction to go into any question connected with the conferment of proprietary rights under 104 of the H.P. 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." In the instant case also, there is violation of the principles of natural justice, since there is no tangible evidence placed on record that the plaintiffs or their predecessors-ininterest were issued notice and offered opportunity to file reply etc. at the time of passing of the order. at the time of passing of the order. In this case, the fundamental principles of judicial procedure have not been followed by the Naib Tehsildar at the time of passing the order, Ex.D-2. The defendant has failed to prove that he was inducted as tenant by the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest. The agreement of tenancy has not been established. 17. Learned Single Judge of this Court in 1997 (3) Sim. L.C. 380, Narain Dass and others v. Bhup Singh and others has held that the tenancy is created by an agreement and a person claiming himself to be tenant has to place on record clear evidence to establish his right of tenancy over the suit land. The learned Single Judge has held as under: "13. It is too well known that tenancy is created by an agreement implied or express and a person claiming himself to be a tenant has to place on record clear evidence to establish his rights of tenancy over the suit land. The present case is not a case in respect of creation of tenancy by operation of law. The plaintiffs relied on the entries existing in the Missal Haquiat, Ex. P 1 of the year, 1965. In the remarks column of this document, reference is made in respect of tenancy by the settlement staff. The learned trial Court on deep scrutiny of this document has observed in para 8 that the Missal No. 118 was prepared on 11.1.1965 as per decision of the Tehsildar dated 6.1.1965. The correction of the revenue entries in the Missal Haquiat was prepared on 11.1.1965. It casts a thick shadow of doubt as to how and under what circumstances, the case could be decided on 6.1.1965 before the preparation of the file. It was for the plaintiffs to remove this doubt which they have miserably failed to remove. 14. There is a reference to the order which order is conspicuously missing and has not been placed on record from the side of the plaintiffs. At this stage, Mr. Malhotra is at pains to pray that the case be remanded and one more opportunity be afforded to the plaintiffs to place on record the said order. 14. There is a reference to the order which order is conspicuously missing and has not been placed on record from the side of the plaintiffs. At this stage, Mr. Malhotra is at pains to pray that the case be remanded and one more opportunity be afforded to the plaintiffs to place on record the said order. In my considered opinion, the plaintiffs are not entitled for this concession in view of the fact that the case was remanded back after affording opportunity to the plaintiffs to place such other evidence on record which they desire to place and inspite of this opportunity, no evidence has been placed on record. This fact has been noticed by me in this judgment. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was decided in the year, 1984 and this appeal has remained pending in this Court since 1988 and in case, there was any truth in what the plaintiffs alleged, the order could have been placed on record by moving an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The prayer thus made by Mr. Malhotra is wholly devoid of force and is rejected." 18. In the instant case, the application has been filed before the Naib Tehsildar (Settlement). The Naib Tehsildar (Settlement) has no jurisdiction or competence to decide the question of tenancy. In view of this, the learned District Judge has rightly relied upon the ratio of the judgment reported in Dharam Singh and others v. Prem Singh and others, 2002 (1) Shim. L.C. 49. The learned Single Judge has held as under: "22. Under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1973, in case of dispute about the status of a person as tenant the jurisdiction to resolve such dispute vests only with the Land Reforms Officer. Tehsildar of the Revenue Department has no jurisdiction to determine such question under the H.P. Land Revenue Act. The order of the Tehsildar directing correction of the revenue entries being without jurisdiction could be ignored by the plaintiff owners. There is also a finding of fact that the order was passed by the Tehsildar behind the back of the plaintiffs and they were not aware of such order. 23. The order of the Tehsildar directing correction of the revenue entries being without jurisdiction could be ignored by the plaintiff owners. There is also a finding of fact that the order was passed by the Tehsildar behind the back of the plaintiffs and they were not aware of such order. 23. There is no scope of dispute that if there was a dispute about the status of the defendants as tenants, the jurisdiction only vested with the Land Reforms Officer under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1973. Tehsildar indeed had no jurisdiction to determine such question under the H.P. Land Revenue Act. The order being without jurisdiction cold be ignored by the plaintiff-owners. This apart, there is a finding of fact that the order was passed by the Tehsildar behind the back of the plaintiff and they were not aware of such an order." Thus, in these circumstances, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. The substantial questions of law raised in the Regular Second Appeal are answered accordingly. 19. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.