JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud,J. This is the plaintiffs’ appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Kinnaur affirming the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs praying for a decree of declaration that the suit land as described is for exclusive use and exploitation of the plaintiffs from the time of their ancestors and the defendants have no right of any kind on the suit land. 2. Before the learned trial Court, 567 estate right holders of village Sangla through their representatives S/Shri Bhagat Singh, Kehar Singh, Satyawan Singh, Digvijender Singh and Ram Lal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiffs’), instituted the suit in a representative capacity against 323 Zamindaran the estate right holders of village Kamroo through S/Shri Ganga Lal, Lachhman Singh, Bhagat Ram, Diwan Singh, Sunder Lal and Mohan Lal (also in a representative capacity) claiming the reliefs: (a) That plaintiffs have got exclusive right of grazing, cutting of leaves for fodder, collection of fallen out leaves for manure, timber for houses, as well as the right of fuel wood for day to day use from the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 841-Taksho, 846, 863, 867, 869 and 875 to 880 Kitas 11, measuring 181-43-96 hectares (locally known by the name Ketra) as entered in Khata Khatoni No. 147/273 min. in the Misal Haquiat (Settlement records of right) of Up-Mohal Thapa of Mohal Sangla, Khasra Nos. 1 to 5 locally known as Kache, Khasra Nos. 511 and 611, locally known as Shantesto, total Kita 7 measuring 141-54-90 hectares, situated in Up-Mohal Panpo as entered in Khata Khatoni Nos. 88 min/159 min in the Misal Haquiat of Up-Mohal Panpo Mohal Sangla, District Kinnaur, H.P. (b) That the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1449 and 1450 and 1451 known as Kailash, 1452, 1453, 1813 and 1816 known as Taksho, 1815 known as Khaldrang, total measuring 289-62-48 hectares as entered in Up-Mohal Goradan in the settlement records of right forms a part and parcel Mohal Sangla and that defendants have no Bartandari rights whatsoever on this land and its inclusion in Up-Mohal Goradan of Mohal Kamroo in the Settlement record of rights in 1982-83 is illegal, void and inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiffs. (c) That the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner Shimla in revenue appeal No. 114/86 dated 31.7.1989 upholding the orders passed by the Settlement Collector, Shimla and Kinnaur District is illegal, void and inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiffs and the entries made in the Settlement records of rights in compliance of this order are also illegal, void and inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiffs and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the exercise to the rights of plaintiffs over the suit land. “ 3. The plaintiffs pleaded that the suit land (supra) are pastures situated in Mohal Sangla, Tehsil Sangla, District Kinnaur and has been in the exclusive user of the plaintiffs since the times of their ancestors to the exclusion of all the defendants except for those who owned lands in Taksho area of Mohal Sangla, Tehsil Sangla, although they were and are residents of village Kamroo, Tehsil Sangla, District Kinnaur. 4. The pleadings then proceeds that the plaintiffs enjoyed the rights of pasture and other Bartandari rights to the knowledge of the defendants. Mohal Sangla and Mohal Kamroo are divided by natural boundaries by a Nullah (stream) known as ‘Jagekhud’ which bifurcates both Mohals. It starts from a point called ‘Raldang’. In the recent revenue settlement in Up-Mohal Goredan in Mohal Kamroo (Tehsil Sangla) was carved out and was given Hadbast No.33/5 by the settlement staff. The plaintiffs do not object for the location of this Up-Mohal on the western side of natural boundary of Jagenalla. But no area on the eastern side of this khud can be included in the Up-Mohal Goredan as it takes the area of Mohal Sangla as described in head note (b) of the plaint. This area measuring 289-62-48 hects has always and is even now a part of Mohala Sangla and never form a part of Mohal Kamroo. Its inclusion in village Kamroo by the recent revenue record is illegal. 5. The Bartandari rights of the plaintiffs mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 5 in Naksha Bartan had never been disturbed by anyone. These rights are: (1) grazing cattle (2) Cutting of leaves for fodder (3) Collection of fallen out leaves for manure (4) Timber rights for the construction of house (5) Collection of fuel wood. 6. 5. The Bartandari rights of the plaintiffs mentioned at serial Nos. 1 to 5 in Naksha Bartan had never been disturbed by anyone. These rights are: (1) grazing cattle (2) Cutting of leaves for fodder (3) Collection of fallen out leaves for manure (4) Timber rights for the construction of house (5) Collection of fuel wood. 6. The plaintiffs further fortified their submission by pleading that according to the censuses of 1981, the number of cattle heads in Mohal Sangla was 4660 whereas in Kamroo it was 598. The population of Sangla was 2588 whereas in Kamroo it was 1443. The plaintiffs submitted that revenue settlements were undertaken in the Chini Tehsil of erstwhile Rampur Bushahr State and at no point of time any Bartandari rights were recorded because none were in existence. Forest settlement was carried out in 1916-17 AD and part of it was done in 1920 AD. 7. Revenue settlement was started and conducted by the Himachal Pradesh Government in District Kinnaur and for the first time the rights of the defendants were included as Bartandari rights. It has been urged that Senteshto in Up-Mohal Panpo has been shown as pasture whereas, in fact, it is a mere cave on the spot and there is no growth whatsoever of any kind. In this eventuality, the defendants can never claim a right to collect leaves etc. from this area. This fact is pleaded to urge that the settlement was a mere sham and while carving out the area as mentioned in sub para (b) (supra), Up-Mohal Goredan in Kamroo Mohal out of the lands, which were situated to the eastern side of the natural boundary of Jagenalla is illegal as this area never formed part of Kamroo Mohal. The important aspect touching the illegality of the settlement, the plaintiffs pleads: “ That while undertaking the settlement, the authorities concerned have acted illegally by not following the procedure prescribed under law which seems to be the handy work of one Sh Vishva Karan Settlement Naib Tehsildar, who was out to do out of the way favour to the defendants. The important aspect touching the illegality of the settlement, the plaintiffs pleads: “ That while undertaking the settlement, the authorities concerned have acted illegally by not following the procedure prescribed under law which seems to be the handy work of one Sh Vishva Karan Settlement Naib Tehsildar, who was out to do out of the way favour to the defendants. As a result of this, action of Sh Vishwa Karan,Settlement Naib Tehsildar, Bartandari rights in respect of Bartan No.1 to 5 of Naksha Bartan have also been included in favour of the defendants in the lands in suit although they had no right therein nor did they ever claim or exercise any such right in the past in these lands. That admittedly there was dispute regarding the rights of the defendants and they were not agreeable for continuance of existing entries as recorded in previous settlement. In these circumstances, they should have been left to get their rights if any settled by having recourse to civil court. Since the revenue settlement staff had been biased and acted malafide, resultantly the orders passed by the Settlement Collector, Shimla and Kinnaur Districts, Shimla-6 dated 5.11.1985 in Case No.22/86, and the appellate order by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla on 31.7.1989 in Revenue Appeal No.114/86, cannot be sustained and are liable to be declared as void, illegal, inoperative and the exclusive Bartandari rights of the plaintiffs over land in question and may be declared as such for which the plaintiffs pray. That the action of the revenue staff being biased and malafide is further strengthened from the fact that the Patwari Halqua at the time when settlement operation had just commenced clearly mentioned in the Naksha Bartan that it is the plaintiffs who have the Bartandari rights over the lands in question but Sh.Vishva Karan, the then Settlement Naib Tehsildar above named in order to do out of the way favour to defendants, made recommendations to higher authorities. However, before accepting such report, the Assistant Settlement Officer as well as the Settlement Collector, never bothered to visit the spot or to make enquiries from the plaintiffs. Similarly, the final decision was not read out to the plaintiffs as required under law, and procedure.” 8. I note that Sh. Vishwa Karan, Settlement Naib Tehsildar or any other revenue officer has not been impleaded as party defendant(s). Similarly, the final decision was not read out to the plaintiffs as required under law, and procedure.” 8. I note that Sh. Vishwa Karan, Settlement Naib Tehsildar or any other revenue officer has not been impleaded as party defendant(s). On the pleadings a decree was sought to the effect that the plaintiffs have exclusive rights of grazing, cutting of leaves for fodder, collection of fallen leaves for manure, timber for the construction of houses as well as fuel wood for day-to-day use from the lands comprised in Khasra numbers as described and declaring the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner in revenue Appeal No. 114/86 dated 31.7.1989 (Ext.P4) up-holding the orders of the Settlement Collector, Shimla in Case No. 22 of 1985 dated 5.11.1985 (Ext.A6) as illegal and utra vires, prohibiting and restraining the defendants by a permanent prohibitory injunction from exercising any rights on the suit land. 9. The defendants, inter alia, pleaded that the plaintiffs have no rights over the area known as ‘Kailash’ on Khasra No. 1451 which they have deliberately excluded to confuse the pleadings. They then state that the suit land is pasture except Gache which was a forest area but it never remained in Mohal Sangla and the plaintiffs have not been exercising any rights of pasture or other easement rights therein. In the area of Goredan Up-Mohal, the defendants have the exclusive rights of grazing cattle, collection of fodder, fuel wood and timer for the construction of houses since time immemorial. It is pleaded that Goredan Up-Mohal is the exclusive right of the defendants. The Mohal of Sangla and Kamroo are divided by natural boundary of Jagekhud. Before the Bandobast Jadid (revenue settlement) only cultivated lands were recorded in revenue records. The Banjar and Ghasni were not measured or recorded. The other allegations are denied as incorrect with the prayer that the suit be dismissed. 10. The learned trial Court settled eleven issues. A number of documents were produced on the record by the plaintiffs and the defendants in support of their case and in addition to oral evidence of the parties. The other allegations are denied as incorrect with the prayer that the suit be dismissed. 10. The learned trial Court settled eleven issues. A number of documents were produced on the record by the plaintiffs and the defendants in support of their case and in addition to oral evidence of the parties. The plaintiffs relied upon Misal Haquiat of Up Mohal Thapa Saring, Ponpo, Goredan Exts.P1, P2 and P3, orders of Commissioner Ext.P4, certificate of office Kanungo Ext.P5, copy of jamabandi for the year 197778 Ext.P6, copy of jamabandi Ext.P7, copy of Misal Haquiat 1984 Ext.P8, copy of jamabandi 2003-2004 Ext.P9, copy of jamabandi 1966-67 Ext.P10, copy of Jamabandi 1976-77 Ext.P11, Misal Haquiat Up-Mohal Panpo, Ext.P12, Misal Haquiat Up Mohal Thapa Saring Bandobast Jadid Ext.P13, copy of mutation Ext.P14, copy of Jamabandi 1950-51 Ext.P15, Misal Haquiat Tarmim Bandobast Ext.P16, copy of mutation Ext.P17, jamabandi Sambat 1996-97 Ext.P18, jamabandi 195860 Ext.P19, Jamabandi 1977-78 Ext.P20, again jamabandi 1978-79 Ext.P21, Furd Bach Revenue Ext.P22, Misal Haquiat Sangla Ext.P23, jamabandi 1976-77 Sangla Ext.24, Aks Sajra Tatima Ext.P25, copy of mutation Ext.P26, copy of mutation Kamroo Ext.P27, copy of Misal Haquiat Kamroo Ext.P28, copy of aks Sajra Kistwar Bandobast Jadid Ext.P29, Asks Sajra Kistwar Kamroo Ext.P30, Aks Sajra of Sangla of year 1927 Ext.P31, Asks Sajra Kistbar of Goredan Ext.P32, Aks Sajra Up-Mohal Ponpo Ext.P33 and closed their evidence. 11. The defendants produced on record the order of Raja Sh.Padam Singh Ext.DW3/B rejecting Nautor to Devta Badri Nath of Sangla on the objections of the Kamroo people, Jamabandies for the years 1958-59 to 1976-77 Exts.D1 to D8, an agreement in Tankara (Mohar Chhap Ext.DW3/C), T.D. permits issued to residents of village Kamroo Exts.D9 to D17, copy of the order of the Settlement Collector dated 5.11.85 were also produced on record. 12. On the settled issues, the learned trial Court held against the plaintiffs. On the first issue which related to the fact as to whether the plaintiffs were exercising their rights of grazing on land described in para (a) of the head note to the exclusion of the defendants except the land of village Kamroo, the learned trial Court on the evidence holds that since the land prior to the settlement order (Ext.P4) by the Divisional Commissioner were un-measured and the rights recorded could not be related to the particular khasra numbers as described in the plaint. The learned trial Court upheld the orders of the Settlement Collector and the Commissioner. On the second issue whether territorial jurisdiction of village Sangla and Kamroo were divided by natural boundaries known as ‘Jagekhud’ and ‘Raldang’, the learned trial Court holds that before the settlement operation 1980-83, the waste land was not measured and as such there was no demarcated boundary line in between the villages Sangla and Kamroo. The learned trial Court then further considers the evidence of PW1 Kehar Singh Negi to hold that Raldang is the Kailash from where the Jagenalla originates and before reaching the villages, its name changes to Khaldaring which bifurcates into three parts before the cultivated area starts. Taking into the totality of the facts and evidence, the court holds that Jagenalla was not the boundary of two villages Kamroo and Sangla. On the third issue whether the land described in Para (b) of the plaint was wrongly shown as Mohal Goreden and Mohal Kamroo, the court holds in favour of the defendants decided the issue against the plaintiffs holding that PW1 Kehar Singh, in fact, admits that Mohal Bandi (separation of estates) was made in the presence of the villagers some time before 1982. The learned trial Court holds that there is an admission that the land were measured in the presence of right holders and the authenticity of the jamabandi was verified by the settlement staff in the presence of the villagers somewhere in 1982. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that area of 289-62-48 hect. had been included in up Mohal Goreden of Mohal Kamroo without consent or notice of the plaintiffs. These objections were never agitated before the Settlement Officer or before any other authorities since 1982 till the filing of the suit and when considered in conjunction with the Mohar Chhap Ext. DW3/C led to the only conclusion that this area exclusively belonged to Devta Badri Nath Ji, Kamroo and the plaintiffs did not object to its inclusion in Kamroo Mohal . On issue No.4, which was as to whether the defendants had no Bartandari rights on the land mentioned in head note-(b) of the plaint, the court holds that the defendants have exclusive Bartandari rights on this land. On issue No.4, which was as to whether the defendants had no Bartandari rights on the land mentioned in head note-(b) of the plaint, the court holds that the defendants have exclusive Bartandari rights on this land. On issue No.5 which related to the legality of the orders passed by the Settlement Collector Ext.A6 and Divisional Commissioner Ex.P4, the learned court holds that these are in accordance with law and the facts proved on record. On the question of limitation, the court holds that the suit is partly barred by limitation. On the tenth issue which was regarding the Bartandari rights, the court holds that the defendants were, in fact, exercising such rights. The suit was dismissed. 13. In appeal, the entire evidence was re-considered. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal on the two points formulated by him for the decision of the appeal holding that the last settlement of 1981-83 was the starting point for the dispute between the parties. The learned court holds that in the erstwhile Bushahr State, there were two settlements namely, Bandobast Kadimi in 1890-91 and Tarmim Bandobast in 1927 but in these two settlements only cultivated land have been measured and the revenue record with rights of the proprietors had been prepared for the cultivated area only. However, a small portion of Government land falling between private lands had also been measured in these two settlements. Large chunks of pastures, barren, banjar and forest land were not subject matter of these settlements. As a consequence, the boundaries of revenue estate in the un-measured portion had not been fixed or determined. The learned Court holds that it was but natural for the proprietors to follow the natural terrain to determine the boundaries of the revenue estate. 14. The dispute before the learned Court was with respect to the unmeasured land which had been measured for the first time in the settlement of 1981-83. The Court holds that in revenue estate Kamroo unmeasured land has been described as khasra No.1. In revenue estate Sangla the unmeasured land had been described as Khasra No. 868 in the first settlement of 1890-91 and in the second settlement of 1927, this was split into two Khasra Nos. 871 and 1221. The Court holds that in revenue estate Kamroo unmeasured land has been described as khasra No.1. In revenue estate Sangla the unmeasured land had been described as Khasra No. 868 in the first settlement of 1890-91 and in the second settlement of 1927, this was split into two Khasra Nos. 871 and 1221. The lands of both estates were unmeasured and it was only at the settlement of 1981-83 that the entire unmeasured land of Kinnaur District was taken into consideration and the parties insisted on their rights recorded in Wazib-ul-Arz (Naksha Bartan). The Settlement Collector and the Commissioner had rejected the case of the plaintiffs after detailed consideration. 15. Adverting to the case of the plaintiffs, there was evidence of PW1 Kehar Singh, who stated that the boundary line of two villages was Jagenalla since time immemorial. Jagenalla starts from Raldang (top of Kinner Kailash mountain) and that bifurcated into two parts from a place known as ‘Khaldrang’, one portion being known as ‘Tong-Tongche’ and the other as ‘Khunalang’ which passes by the eastern side of Sangla village. This Jagenalla was divided into three streams. The learned court holds that there is no corroboration by any other evidence by the plaintiffs. The other evidence consisted of Government servants or proprietors of far off localities but not of revenue estate Sangla. The plaintiffs have also examined shepherds who are resident of far off localities to prove their rights on the suit land to the exclusion of the defendants. These witnesses according to the learned appellate Court could not be definite with respect to the identity of the cattle or other shepherds. They could also not be treated as persons conversant with the age old boundaries followed by usage or otherwise by the proprietors. 16. On the evidence, the learned court holds that the rights of the defendants over the suit land had been recognized at the time of the settlement of 1981-83 adjudicated by the Assistant Settlement Officer by his order dated 5.11.1985 (Ext.A6). This order records that the plaintiffs had examined S/Shri Surjan Singh and Jawahar Singh before the settlement authorities. Sh. Surjan Singh was a shepherd of one Sh.Keshavi Nand of revenue estate Sangla while Sh. Jawahar Singh had worked as shepherd of one Sh. Gheso Ram of revenue estate Sangla. This order records that the plaintiffs had examined S/Shri Surjan Singh and Jawahar Singh before the settlement authorities. Sh. Surjan Singh was a shepherd of one Sh.Keshavi Nand of revenue estate Sangla while Sh. Jawahar Singh had worked as shepherd of one Sh. Gheso Ram of revenue estate Sangla. They had admitted before the settlement authorities that the suit land was being used as a pasture for their cattle by all proprietors of Sangla and Kamroo. The Court then holds that it was not disputed before it that S/Shri Surjan Singh and Jawahar Singh had not been examined as witnesses before the revenue authority. 17. DW3 Sh.Ganga Lal-defendant stated that the proprietors of revenue estate Kamroo had been exercising customary rights over the suit land since time immemorial and tendered on record Mohar Chhap Ext.DW3/C relatable to the time of his Highness Sh. Shamsher Singh Ruler of Bushahr State. The Mohar Chhap was granted by the Ruler to Devta Badrinathji of village Kamroo, recording that the un-cultivated area above Dhumti (flowing together of Baspa and Satluj rivers) up to Bisarcha had been granted to Devta Badrinathji of Kamroo in the year 1873. It was admitted that the suit land had fallen in between Dhumti and Bisarcha. It was also admitted that Devta Badrinathji was the principal deity of Kamroo. In these circumstances, there is nothing illegal in the orders passed by the settlement authorities in recording the customary rights of the proprietors of revenue estate of Kamroo over the suit land as Devta of Badrinathji of Kamroo had been conferred rights of this area. 18. Adverting to Ext.DW3/C (Mohar Chhap), the learned court holds that though there was no mention about original Mohar Chhap in the revenue record but that looses significance because the Mohar Chhap only relates to grants of uncultivated areas above Dhumti to Bisarcha. The Court notes that it was admitted before it that the records of rights of unmeasured area over Dhumti had not been prepared in any settlement prior to 1981-83. In these circumstances, there was no occasion for the defendants or the Kardar of Devta Badrinathji to have produced the Mohar Chhap before any revenue authority. The Nautor area measuring 323-11 bighas in Ketra, which have been applied for by the residents of estate Sangla on 21.4.1914, was rejected by his Highness Sh. Padam Singh the then Ruler of erstwhile Bushahr State on 6.1.1917. The Nautor area measuring 323-11 bighas in Ketra, which have been applied for by the residents of estate Sangla on 21.4.1914, was rejected by his Highness Sh. Padam Singh the then Ruler of erstwhile Bushahr State on 6.1.1917. The order records that the Nautor was opposed by the proprietors of revenue estate Kamroo who had urged that the rights of grazing were being adversely effected. In this order, his highness Sh.Padam Singh has also mentioned about the Mohar Chhap (Ext.DW3/C) and that the proprietors of revenue estate Kamroo had rights of grazing cattle over the land applied for as Nautor. The Court records that the then Ruler had carried out spot inspection of the area and upheld the objections of the residents of revenue estate Kamroo. Nautor was accordingly rejected which order was sought to be challenged in review petition. Vide order dated 7.4.1917, the review petition was also rejected. 19. It was urged before the learned appellate Court that both the orders were based on the Mohar Chhap (Ext.DW3/C) and since this document has not been proved in accordance with law, two orders i.e. one of rejection and the second of review had to be ignored. This contention was rejected and I see no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned two courts below. 20. The Collector in his order (Ext.A6) records that the application made by the residents of village Sangla opposing the inclusion of rights of village Kamroo in the areas included Panpo, Gache and Shentesto of Up-Mohal Panpo Ketra of Up-Mohal Thapasaring of Mohal Sangla was forwarded to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kinnaur for detailed enquiry, who entrusted it to the Settlement Naib Tehsildar, Sangla. A detailed inquiry report dated 2.8.1983 was submitted by the Naib Tehsildar after recording the statements of the representatives of both the villages and conducted spot inspection. The order then proceeds that the residents of village Sangla produced and examined six witnesses and their statements were recorded by the Settlement Naib Tehsildar. A detailed inquiry report dated 2.8.1983 was submitted by the Naib Tehsildar after recording the statements of the representatives of both the villages and conducted spot inspection. The order then proceeds that the residents of village Sangla produced and examined six witnesses and their statements were recorded by the Settlement Naib Tehsildar. It also takes into consideration the agreement (Shiun Sand) of Sambat 1912 Chhota Sambat 21 Ashoj 27 entered into between the Sangla and Kamroo villagers in the presence of Wajir Asman Jor Sarjit and concludes that it was evident from this agreement that the residents of village Sangla to forego their rights over the areas of Ketra and Gache and that the villagers of Sangla paid Rs.5/- as penalty as also undertaking to abide by the terms of this agreement. Judgment dated 6.1.1917 of the then Ruler of Bushahr State established that some residents of village Sangla had applied for nautor land in Ketra area and the residents of village Kamroo objected to the grant. This application for grant of nautor was rejected by judgment in case No. 57 dated 6.1.1917. The Ruler decreed that the Banjar area in Ketra will remain as pasture of both villages. The villagers of Sangla preferred a review petition before the Maharaja which was rejected on 7.4.1917. A copy of the Mohar Chhap proved that deer hunting is banned in this area. Without encumbering the record, it would be fruitful to reproduce what was considered by the Collector: “The records/documents produced by the residents of Kamru were examined. From the perusal of the agreement (Shiun Sand) dated Sambat 1912 Chhota Sambat 21 Ashoj 27 entered between the Sangla and Kamru villagers in the presence of Wajir Asman Jor Sarjit, it is evident that it was agreed by the residents of Sangla to forego their claims/rights over the areas of Ketra and Gache. It is also evident from the contents of the agreement that the villagers of Sangla paid Rs. 5/- as penalty and also agreed to abide by the terms of agreement reached between them. The judgment dated 6.1.1917 was perused. It shows that some residents of Sangla village applied for grant of nautor in Ketra area and the residents of Kamroo objected to the grant of nautor in this area. 5/- as penalty and also agreed to abide by the terms of agreement reached between them. The judgment dated 6.1.1917 was perused. It shows that some residents of Sangla village applied for grant of nautor in Ketra area and the residents of Kamroo objected to the grant of nautor in this area. The application for the grant of nautor was rejected by the Maharaja and the then Rular of Bushahr State in case No. 57 vide judgment dated 6.1.1917. In the said decision it was ordered that the ‘Banjar’ area in Ketra will remain as pasture to both the villages. Aggrieved of this decision the residents of Sangla filed review petition before the Maharaja, Bushahr State and it was again rejected on 7.4.1917. The residents of Kamroo village also produced the copy of ‘Mohar Chhap’ issued by the Maharaja Bushahr State. The perusal of this document show that it banned hunting of musk deer in these areas. It has been contended by the villagers of Kamroo that they have been availing T.D. rights in the Forest in Gache area and they have tendered the copies of permits issued by the Forest Department in their favour.” 21. The Collector considered the genesis of the entire disputes which was that in the last regular settlement operations conducted in the year 1890-91, the cultivated agricultural areas were measured and records prepared but the Government waste land remained un-measured. In this area, the rights of ‘Charand’ (grazing) etc. were not defined and left to usages, customs and conventions followed by the local people. In the settlement in dispute, the areas of Ketra, Gache, Senteshto and Panpo were measured and records prepared. 22. The Collector concludes that there is no evidence to establish that the villagers of Sangla had objected to the grazing of cattle belonging to Kamroo village in these areas. The oral evidence adduced by the parties also shows that the cattle belonging to both the villages were being taken for grazing in these areas and in these circumstances, the residents of village Sangla could not urge that the rights of the Kamroo village in these areas did not exist. The Collector based his decision on the report of the Settlement Naib Tehsildar, Sangla and Assistant Settlement Officer, Kinnaur and did not find any reason to differ with them. The Collector based his decision on the report of the Settlement Naib Tehsildar, Sangla and Assistant Settlement Officer, Kinnaur and did not find any reason to differ with them. In these circumstances, the Collector directed that the rights of both the parties be recorded in the following terms: 23. Appeal No. 114 of 1986 was preferred against this order before the Divisional Commissioner. He dismissed the appeal after detailed consideration of the fact situation and submissions made before him. He holds: Sr.No. Area Khasra Numbers Rights. 1. Ketra of Up Mohal 841,846,863,867,869, 1 to 5 Thapasharing of 875,876,877,878, 879 Mohal Sangla and 880. 2. Gache of Up Mohal 1,2,3,4,5. -do- Panpo of Mohal Sangla. (Both the villages shall exercise the above ) 3. Shentesto of Up 511, 611 -do- Mohal Panpo of Mohal Sangla. “ Having considered the above arguments carefully I am of the opinion that the learned Settlement Officer has not committed any illegality or irregularity in recording of ‘Bartandari’ and grazing rights in respect of both the villages in Ketra, Gache and Shentesto Settlements. The contention of the appellants’ counsel that no rights of Kamroo village could be recorded towards east of Jage Khad is without any force. It is borne out from record that residents of Kamroo village had been enjoying such rights in the past towards eastern side of Jage Khad. The ‘Siun-Sand’ which is an agreement between the villagers of Kamroo and Sangla, executed in Bikrami era 1912, shows that the residents of Sangla village had agreed to forego their rights over the areas of Ketra and Gache. It is apparent from the perusal of this agreement (original seen and returned) that the inhabitants of Sangla Village had paid a penalty of Rs.5/- for breach of certain conditions in the past and had agreed to abide by the terms of this agreement in future failing which they (appellants) were to be fined a sum of Rs.500/-. It is clearly mentioned in this document that for future the inhabitants of Sangla Village had agreed not to have their ‘deras’, ‘Thach’ or ‘Sharan’ in villages Gache and Ketra. There is nothing on the record to show that this agreement between the two villages had at any later stage been rescind. It is clearly mentioned in this document that for future the inhabitants of Sangla Village had agreed not to have their ‘deras’, ‘Thach’ or ‘Sharan’ in villages Gache and Ketra. There is nothing on the record to show that this agreement between the two villages had at any later stage been rescind. The appellants had not adduced any evidence in rebuttal of this agreement and thus they cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the same at this stage. The fact that rights of both the villages were in existence in Ketra Settlement is also established from order dated 6.1.1917 passed on the application for nautor sought in Ketra by ‘Mandir Thakur Dwara’, Sangla. This application for nautor of 323-11 bighas in village Ketra had been rejected on the ground that the area sought in nautor was situated in the pasture of both the villages namely Kamroo and Sangla and residents of Kamroo had objected to its grant. The site had been inspected by the then Ruler of Bushahr State. A review application qua this nautor was subsequently rejected on 7.4.1917 by the then Ruler of Bushahr State. Thus, this nautor case goes to show that grazing rights of both the villages were in existence in Ketra Settlement and now inhabitants of Kamroo village cannot be denied these rights. During the enquiry before the Naib Tehsildar, Settlement, Sangla the respondents had produced a number of permits given in TD from 1959-60 onwards to the residents of Kamroo in U.F. No. 162. This U.F. No. 162 is situated in Gache area. There is nothing on record to show that the appellants had ever objected to the grant of TD to the respondents in Gache area. The working Plan relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is relevant for the purpose of extraction of timber only and it is not germane as far as ‘Bartandari’ and other rights are concerned. In the present settlement when an attempt has been made to record or update these rights the previous rights cannot be deleted simply on the argument of the appellants that Ketra Settlement is situated towards the east of Jage Khad. Para 296-A of the Settlement Manual provides that if Settlement Officer can arrive at no definite and satisfactory finding, as in this case, he should repeat the former entry and leave the parties to a suit in the Court.” 24. Para 296-A of the Settlement Manual provides that if Settlement Officer can arrive at no definite and satisfactory finding, as in this case, he should repeat the former entry and leave the parties to a suit in the Court.” 24. I have considered these orders in some detail as they consider and decide on the material produced before the Collector as affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner for determination of the rights of the parties. Two courts below have re-appreciated the evidence led in the revenue courts and have expressed their concurrence/concord with the findings of the revenue authorities after detailed discussion and appreciation of evidence. 25. It is urged before me that the findings of the two courts below are perverse and in that eventuality this appeal requires to be accepted. The jurisdiction of this Court in Section 100 C.P.C. is now well defined. In Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, (2010) 13 SCC 216 , the Court holds: 28. If a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eyes of law. If the findings of the Court are based on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable or evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings, then the findings may be said to be perverse. Further if the findings are either ipse dixit of the Court or based on conjecture and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and thus, stands vitiated. (Vide: Bharatha Matha & Anr. v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2685 ). (P.229) 26. In General Manager (P), Punjab and Sind Bank and others Vs. Daya Singh, (2010) 11 S.C.C 233 , the Supreme Court holds: 24……………………..A perverse finding is one which is based on no evidence or one that no reasonable person would arrive at. This has been held by this Court long back in Triveni Rubber & Plastics vs. CCE AIR 1994 SC 1341 . Daya Singh, (2010) 11 S.C.C 233 , the Supreme Court holds: 24……………………..A perverse finding is one which is based on no evidence or one that no reasonable person would arrive at. This has been held by this Court long back in Triveni Rubber & Plastics vs. CCE AIR 1994 SC 1341 . Unless it is found that some relevant evidence has not been considered or that certain inadmissible material has been taken into consideration the finding cannot be said to be perverse. The legal position in this behalf has been recently reiterated in Arulvelu and Another vs. State Represented by the Public Prosecutor and Another (2009) 10 SCC 206 . The decision of the High Court cannot therefore be sustained.” (P.240) 27. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere is controlled by the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure as considered in Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur case (supra). 28. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the revenue record prepared during the earlier Revenue Settlements can be obliterated, ignored or revised on the basis of some alleged grant issued by the then Ruler which alleged grant was never entered in the records or implemented or acted upon in the earlier Revenue Settlements held twice during the last 100 years.? 2. Whether new rights could be created in favour of residents of the other and distinct revenue estate in the settlement operation on the basis of some alleged sovereign grant by erstwhile Ruler which was never acted upon for more than 100 years and when no such rights were ever exercised earlier by the residents of the other estate? 3. Whether the settlement staff could take away chunk of land from one revenue estate and put it in another revenue estate contrary to the land Settlement Manual and notification issued under Section 33 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 depriving people of one revenue estate of their legal and customary rights recorded in the earlier settlements and if so to what effect? 4. Whether the Settlement operation carried by the Revenue Staff was manifestly contrary to the notification issued under Section 33 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 and if so to what effect?. 29. Bereft of details, the case as urged is one of illegality of the revenue settlement. 4. Whether the Settlement operation carried by the Revenue Staff was manifestly contrary to the notification issued under Section 33 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 and if so to what effect?. 29. Bereft of details, the case as urged is one of illegality of the revenue settlement. It creates new rights in favour of the defendants obliterating the old records and it is not inconsonance with the provisions of Section 33 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is in this background that the submissions of the parties have to be adjudicated. I need not reiterate what I have considered above which is the fact situation determined by four authorities i.e. the Settlement Collector, Divisional Commissioner (statutory authorities of the revenue law) and the trial court as also the appellate Court re-appreciating the entire evidence and concurring with the conclusions of the learned Court below. I cannot persuade myself to hold a different view on the findings arrived at by the revenue authorities/Courts. I also note that there is no pleading to establish any malafide in the settlement operation. The persons named (as noted supra in the pleadings) have not been impleaded as respondents. The records thus contained voluminous documents in the nature of revenue records. 30. Taking up question Nos. 1 and 2 first, the grievance of the appellants is that the revenue record prepared during the earlier settlement has been totally effaced on the basis of some alleged grant issued by the then Ruler and that this grant was never entered into the earlier revenue record. This is the gist of the grievance. What I find from the evidence and what has been recorded and held by the learned District Judge is that the settlement for the un-measured areas on which the plaintiffs claimed their exclusive right was carried out for the first time in the settlement Bandobast Jadid in 1980-1984. Prior to that, in the two revenue proceedings of 1890-91 Kanooni Bandobast and in 1927 Tarmim Bandobast, it was only the cultivated land which was taken into consideration and the other land was left un-measured. 31. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that even if the area was un-measured, the rights of the plaintiffs-appellants are well recorded in the revenue records and the settlement of 1980-84 has only defined the area of such land. I cannot accept this submission. 31. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that even if the area was un-measured, the rights of the plaintiffs-appellants are well recorded in the revenue records and the settlement of 1980-84 has only defined the area of such land. I cannot accept this submission. Despite the fact that voluminous records have been produced, there is nothing on the record to show or indicate that prior to the settlement of 1980-84, the entire area of Kinnaur was measured. This is very peculiar to District Kinnaur. On the other aspect that the documents referred by the Settlement Collector in his order Ext.A6 were not earlier recorded in the revenue records, the finding of the learned District Judge is absolutely clear. The Collector notes that the settlement of 1980-84 was required to measure the entire area and it was based not solely on the basis of the documents produced by the defendants, but also a detailed inquiry having been conducted. Obviously, it will not be open to this Court in second appeal to act as an Inquiry Officer. 32. Both these questions are answered against the plaintiffs. I hold that on the basis of the material produced on record, the report of the revenue officers and the two judgments of the revenue officers, namely, Settlement Collector, Divisional Commissioner and the concurrent findings of the two Courts below, there is no perversity in the findings arrived at. I also hold that it is not for the first time that the rights of the parties have been determined. 33. On question No.3 what was submitted before me was that the entire portion of land was taken away from one revenue estate and then supplanted in other estate depriving the people of one revenue estate of their legal and customary rights recorded in the earlier settlement. 34. Adverting to the fourth question that the settlement operation was carried out by the revenue staff contrary to the notification issued under Section 33 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, I find no evidence on the record to establish it. There is no evidence on record to establish the violation of Section 33 of the Land Revenue Act. The submission that new estate have been carved out cannot be accepted. It is not for the plaintiffs to dictate revenue administrative exigency. 35. There is no evidence on record to establish the violation of Section 33 of the Land Revenue Act. The submission that new estate have been carved out cannot be accepted. It is not for the plaintiffs to dictate revenue administrative exigency. 35. Adverting to the last aspect, I find no rights of the parties having been recorded during the earlier settlement operation. In the Kanooni Bandobast 1890-1991 and Tarmim Bandobast of 1927, the plaintiffs do not have any exclusive customary rights over the suit land. 36. These questions are answered against the appellants. The concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below affirmed the findings of two other revenue authorities and in these circumstances, I do not find any question of law much less of substantial questions of law requiring determination in this appeal which are accordingly disposed of. Appeal is dismissed.