JUDGMENT : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge (I), Mandi, H.P., (Camp at Karsog), dated 5.8.2014, passed in Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2013. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs), have instituted suit for declaration and injunction against the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) regarding land comprised in Khewat No. 42, Khatauni No. 74, Kh. Nos. 220, 237, 259 and 367, Kita 4, measuring 2-0-3 bighas situated in Muhal Kuftu/190, Tehsil Karsog, Distt. Mandi, H.P. The suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. The entries showing defendants No. 1 to 4 as co-sharers and tenants are wrong and illegal. The copy of jamabandi for the year 2005-06 was also annexed. The suit land comprised in Khewat No. 43, Khatauni No. 75, Kh. No. 184, 185 and 190 Kita 3, measuring 0-3-6 bighas situated in Muhal Kuftu/190, Tehsil Karsog, Distt. Mandi, H.P. is also owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. The entries showing defendants No. 5 to 8 as co-sharers and tenants are wrong and illegal. The defendants or their predecessors have never been inducted as tenants by plaintiffs or their predecessors over the suit land. The entries showing the defendants and their predecessors firstly as non-occupancy tenants and thereafter as cosharers or tenants with the plaintiffs are wrong and illegal. Sh. Khinthu and Tula Ram have never cultivated the suit land nor did possess the same in any capacity. Sh. Khinthu and Tula Ram during settlement operation in connivance with the revenue agency have manipulated the fake entries in their name as tenants. The alleged tenants have never paid rent (Galla Batai) to the plaintiffs or their predecessors nor they were in possession of the suit land. On the basis of the wrong revenue entries, the revenue agency behind the back of the plaintiffs and their predecessors have conferred the ownership rights in favour of Khinthu and Tula Ram vide mutation Nos. 36 and 37 dated 12.2.1976. The mutation did not confer any right title or interest in favour of the defendants or their predecessors. The revenue agency while effecting the ownership rights in favour of Khinthu and Tula Ram has not complied with the mandatory provisions of law. 36 and 37 dated 12.2.1976. The mutation did not confer any right title or interest in favour of the defendants or their predecessors. The revenue agency while effecting the ownership rights in favour of Khinthu and Tula Ram has not complied with the mandatory provisions of law. The defendants took undue advantage of the wrong revenue entries and applied for partition of the suit land alongwith other landed property. The plaintiffs have raised the question of title before the revenue court, however, order dated 15.11.2011 was passed by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Karsog. The revenue agency has wrongly disallowed the objections raised by the plaintiffs regarding the question of title. After the death of Khinthu, on the basis of Will defendants No. 1 to 3, namely, Lal Singh, Ram Lal and Amin Chand, claimed themselves to be owner of the suit land. Khinthu had no legal right to confer any right, title or interest in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3. The entries reflecting Paras Ram, defendant No. 4 as non-occupancy tenant are also fake and fictitious. There was no justification as to how, he was inducted as tenant. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement. They have justified the revenue entries. According to them, these entries were continuing since settlement operation of 1965-66. The land was jointly owned and possessed by Udmia, Dahlu, Kansu, Chuhdu and plaintiffs. The forefather of defendants used to cultivate the suit land as non-occupancy tenant. The defendants used to pay revenue to the government. Defendant No. 4 Paras Ram is owner by way of registered sale deed dated 10.11.1994 executed by plaintiffs Gauri Dutt and Balu and also by way of exchange of land with Khinthu etc. They were tenants on the suit land on the basis of conferment of proprietary rights vide mutation Nos. 36 & 37 dated 12.2.1976. The plaintiffs had not raised any objection before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Karsog at the time of attestation of mutations. 4. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Karsog, framed the issues on 7.5.2012. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.6.2013. The plaintiffs, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.6.2013. The learned Addl. District Judge, Mandi (I), (Camp at Karsog), allowed the same on 5.8.2014. Hence, this regular second appeal. 5. 4. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Karsog, framed the issues on 7.5.2012. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.6.2013. The plaintiffs, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.6.2013. The learned Addl. District Judge, Mandi (I), (Camp at Karsog), allowed the same on 5.8.2014. Hence, this regular second appeal. 5. The regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 5.11.2014: “1. Whether the findings of the court below are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence as also pleadings of the parties, particularly, revenue records i.e. jamabandis Ext. PW-1/C, Ext. PW- 1/D to Ext. PW-1/G and Ext. PW-1/J, mutation Ext. PW-1/E as also the order of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Karsog dated 15.11.2011 Ext. PW- 1/H to which presumption of truth is attached? 2. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and set aside the partition proceedings as also the order of the Land Reforms Officer when in view of the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred? 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff was within limitation and the courts below have ignored the presumption of truth attached to the revenue records as also the orders of the Revenue Officers and the Land Reforms officer which had attained finality?” 6. Mr. K.D.Sood, Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants with Mr. Rajnish K. Lall, advocate, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the revenue record. According to him, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and set aside the partition proceedings and the order of the Land reforms Officer in view of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. He then contended that the presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record. On the other hand, Mr. G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate, appearing with Mr. B.C.Verma, Advocate, has supported the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2014. 7. Since all the substantial questions of law are inter-connected, hence are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of evidence. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the judgments and records of the case carefully. 9. Plaintiff Gauri Dutt has appeared as PW-1. 7. Since all the substantial questions of law are inter-connected, hence are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of evidence. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the judgments and records of the case carefully. 9. Plaintiff Gauri Dutt has appeared as PW-1. He led his evidence by filing affidavit Ext. PW-1/A. He has proved copy Missal Haquiat Bandobast Jadid Ext. PW-1/B, Nakal Jamabandi for the year 1974-75 Ext. PW-1/D, copy of mutation No. 36 Ext. PW-1/E, copy of mutation No. 37 Ext. PW-1/F, copy of mutation No. 125 Ext. PW-1/G, copy of order of Tehsildar Ext. PW-1/H dated 15.11.2011 and copy of Jamabandi for the year 2005-06 Ext. PW-1/J. He denied the specific suggestion that father of defendants Jai Nand and Tula Ram were in possession of the suit land before the settlement. He denied that predecessors of defendants were tenants of this land and they used to pay rent to government. He also denied that mutation Nos. 36, 37 dated 12.2.1976, respectively and mutation No. 125 dated 24.5.2007 were attested in favour of the defendants. 10. PW-2 Keshav Ram has also tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ext. PW-2/A. The suit land was owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. Defendants never came in possession of the suit land. Earlier, the suit land was owned and possessed by Balu and Chuhru and after their death the suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. The suit land was never cultivated by defendants or their predecessors. Defendants have never paid any rent (Galla Batai) to the plaintiffs or their predecessors. 11. PW-3 Balak Ram has also led his evidence by filing affidavit Ext. PW-3/A. He has corroborated the statement of PW-2 Keshav Ram. 12. DW-1 Ganga Ram Patwari has stated that he was taken to spot by Lal Chand for identification of some khasra numbers. When he appeared on the spot, Lal Chand, Gauri Dutt etc. were present on the spot. In his cross-examination, he admitted that no application was filed for visiting the spot before him. 13. DW-2 Lal Singh deposed that his grandfather was Khinthu. He executed Will in favour of three brothers. Earlier, his grandfather was tenant of the land and became owner thereof under the Tenancy Act. The land was in their possession. In his cross-examination, he admitted that no application was filed for visiting the spot before him. 13. DW-2 Lal Singh deposed that his grandfather was Khinthu. He executed Will in favour of three brothers. Earlier, his grandfather was tenant of the land and became owner thereof under the Tenancy Act. The land was in their possession. He had no knowledge whether any writing was made for inducting them as tenants. He deposed particularly that neither his grandfather, father nor they paid any “Galla Batai” to the plaintiffs. Their grandfather became owner of the suit land in the year 1976. He had no specific knowledge when the grandfather became owner of the suit land and whether plaintiffs and co-owners were called on the spot. He also admitted that plaintiffs came to know qua revenue entries when they filed partition suit of the suit land. 14. DW-3 Leeladhar deposed that the name of his father was Tula Ram and defendants No. 5 to 8 are sons of Tula Ram. They have planted Apple and Almond plants on this land. He has also admitted that neither they nor their father paid =Galla Batai' in their presence. 15. DW-4 Alam Chand deposed that the name of his father was Paras Ram. The plaintiffs executed Will in favour of his father of land measuring 0-8-17 bighas in the year 1994 vide sale deed Ext. D-1. 16. DW-5 Sher Singh deposed that the Patwari has visited the spot. The Patwari has told the parties about the possession of the khasra numbers as per the revenue record. 17. According to the Misal Haquiat Bandobast Jadid Ext. PW-1/B, copy of jamabandi for the year 1974-75 PW-1/C, the entries in the rent column are vacant. Similarly, in the jamabandi for the year 1964-65 Ext. PW-1/D, the rent column is vacant. The proprietary rights were conferred by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Karsog. The copy of mutation No. 36 is Ext. PW-1/E and mutation No. 37 is Ext. PW-1/F. Even in the jamabandi for the year 2005-06, there is no mention of rent paid by the tenants. The witnesses appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs have specifically deposed that the defendants have never paid any rent rather the witnesses appearing on behalf of the defendants have admitted that no rent (Galla Batai) was ever paid by the tenants. 18. The tenancy is a bilateral act. The witnesses appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs have specifically deposed that the defendants have never paid any rent rather the witnesses appearing on behalf of the defendants have admitted that no rent (Galla Batai) was ever paid by the tenants. 18. The tenancy is a bilateral act. The payment of rent is a sine-qua-non for creation of tenancy. It has come on record that plaintiffs remained in possession of the suit land and the defendants have never cultivated the land. The defendants were never inducted as tenants by the plaintiffs. 19. The Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Karsog, has no jurisdiction to confer proprietary rights upon the defendants. The order passed by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Karsog, is without jurisdiction. Similarly, Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Karsog has no jurisdiction to pass orders Ext. PW-1/H dated 15.11.2011. The defendants have also not placed any written document to prove their tenancy. Since the order passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Karsog of conferring the proprietary rights upon the predecessor of the defendants was without authority and jurisdiction, thus the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present lis. 20. In the case of Besru vrs. Shibu, reported in 1999 (1) Shim.L.C. 343 , this Court has held that it was evident from Rule 29 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975 that only Assistant Collector (Ist Grade) was competent Land Reforms Officer to hold enquiry under Section 14 of the Act. It has been held as follows: “9. Rule 28 of the Rules provides that mutation is to be attested in the presence of the parties and Rule 29 provides that a dispute under subsection (4) of Section 104 of the Act shall be decided by the Land Reforms Officer in his capacity as an Assistant Collector 1st Grade in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act or the H.P. Land Revenue Act, as the case may be, though the inquiry held by him would be summary inquiry. In the H.P. Land Revenue Act, which applies to the present case. Sections 20 to 23 provide for summoning persons for the purpose of any business before a Revenue Officer and the mode of service of summons. In the H.P. Land Revenue Act, which applies to the present case. Sections 20 to 23 provide for summoning persons for the purpose of any business before a Revenue Officer and the mode of service of summons. Under Section 21 thereof, it is stated that summons issued by a Revenue Officer shall, if practicable, be served personally upon the person to whom it is addressed or failing him, his recognized agent, or in case it is refused by affixation on the last known address or by sending the same by registered post of proclamation, etc. etc. 10. Admittedly, in the present case no attempt was made by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade to serve the plaintiff in accordance with law. As such, the mutation is void ab initio being violative of the principles of natural justice. It can be held so for another reason that it was not passed by the competent authority. From Rule 29 of the Rules, it is clear that only Assistant Collector of the 1st Grade was the competent Land Reforms Officer to hold inquiry under Section 104 of the Act. It is further fortified by the Notifications dated 27th/29th September, 1995 whereby all the Tehsildars in Himachal Pradesh were conferred with powers of Assistant Collector of 1st Grade for purposes of Chapter X of the Act under which Section 104, pertaining to acquisition of proprietary rights by the tenants, fails. By another Notification of the same date, Tehsildars conferred with the powers of Assistant Collector 1st Grade were appointed Land Reforms Officers for carrying out the purposes of Chapter X of the Act within their respective jurisdiction with immediate effect. So far the present case is concerned, from the perusal of mutation, it is clear that it was attested by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade who had no jurisdiction to do so. Had the plaintiff been served in accordance with law and the competent authority held proper inquiry, the mutation conferring proprietary rights on the defendants would not have been passed in view of the Bar under sub-section (8) (a) of Section 104 of the Act.” 21. In the case of Krishan Chand and ors. Vrs. Jeet Ram and another, reported in Latest HLJ 2009 (IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH) 978, this Court has held that the proceedings for conferment of proprietary rights conducted by A.C. 2nd Grade, would be void ab initio. In the case of Krishan Chand and ors. Vrs. Jeet Ram and another, reported in Latest HLJ 2009 (IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH) 978, this Court has held that the proceedings for conferment of proprietary rights conducted by A.C. 2nd Grade, would be void ab initio. This Court has further held that since the very purpose of the tenancy had been challenged, the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to decide the matter. It has been held as follows: 6. Learned counsel has urged that proprietary rights were conferred on the appellants herein in accordance with law and has emphasized that Ex.DX-1 to DX-3 which are the basis and foundation for claiming ownership under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'). 8. By Notification No.1-8/68-Rev.1 issued by the competent Authority under Section 86 of the Act, it is only the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, who is empowered to take-up proceedings of conferment of proprietary rights. Notification reads:- "No.1-8/68-Rev.1- In exercise of the powers vested in him under subsection (1) of section 86 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (Act No.8 of 1974) and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to confer on all the Tehsildars in Himachal Pradesh, all the powers exercisable by an Assistant Collector of First Grade, for the purposes of Chapter IX of the aforesaid Act, within their respective jurisdiction, with immediate effect." It is undisputed that the provision of conferment of proprietary rights by tenants is contained in Chapter-IX of the Act as aforesaid. These proceedings are, therefore, void ab initio, having been conducted by an officer who is not empowered to exercise power to grant proprietary rights or to perform any other ancialling act. The very basis set up by the defendants for claiming ownership is, therefore, without any basis. This question would have concluded the entire controversy, however, since the appeal has been admitted on other questions, I am taking them up for consideration. Question No.5: 9. This question is answered against the appellants. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted as pleaded. This question would have concluded the entire controversy, however, since the appeal has been admitted on other questions, I am taking them up for consideration. Question No.5: 9. This question is answered against the appellants. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted as pleaded. The decisions in Pritam Singh vs. Krishan Kumar, 1997 (1) Sim.L.C. 255, Birbal vs. Udhami 1992 (1) Sim.L.C. and Shankar vs. Rukmani, 2003 (1) Sim.L.C. 300 are clear and unequivocal that where the proceedings have been conducted without jurisdiction, where the question of tenancy is disputed, independent of the proceedings under the IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, there is no finality to the adjudication of the revenue officials and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred. In Rukmani's case supra this Court held:- "After analyzing the judgment in Chuhniya Devi v. Jindu Ram's case (supra), we have no doubt that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under the Act if the dispute pertaining to the relationship of landlord and tenant arises during the proceedings of conferment of proprietary rights upon the tenant and resumption of land by the land owner and the order in respect thereof has been passed by the authorities under the Act 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. But if the dispute of landlord and tenant arises independent of the proceedings under the Act, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction." In the present case the very basis and foundation of conferment of proprietary rights has been questioned. The case pleaded by the plaintiffs is one of suppression of facts, exercise of powers by an officer not competent to do so and the very basis of tenancy has been challenged. This question is, therefore, answered against the appellants.” 22. It is also settled law that mutation does not confer any right. The revenue entries are used only for the fiscal purposes. Though, presumption of truth is attached to the revenue entries, but these are rebuttable. That the suit land was allegedly purchased by defendant Gauri Dutt is not borne out from the records. It is also settled law that mutation does not confer any right. The revenue entries are used only for the fiscal purposes. Though, presumption of truth is attached to the revenue entries, but these are rebuttable. That the suit land was allegedly purchased by defendant Gauri Dutt is not borne out from the records. There is no evidence of any exchange of land by the plaintiffs with defendant No. 4. The first appellate Court below has correctly appreciated the revenue entries. The Civil Court had the jurisdiction in the matter since the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Karsog had no jurisdiction to confer proprietary rights under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The principles of natural justice were also violated. Thus, the orders passed by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Karsog, were null and void. Similarly, Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Karsog, could not pass orders in partition proceedings on the basis of the mutations No. 36 and 37 dated 12.2.1976. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 23. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application (s), if any.q