JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. Defendant Munnu (since dead) was in second appeal before this Court. He died during the pendency of the appeal and has been substituted by his legal representatives, appellants herein. 2. The complaint is that learned lower appellate vide judgment and decree dated 25th February, 2002, passed in Civil Appeal No. 47-S/13 of 2001, under challenge in the present appeal, has erroneously and without any cogent reasons reversed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 365/1 of 1992. 3. This Court has admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether civil suit filed by respondents for correction of revenue entries, as per findings recorded by the learned Senior Sub Judge on issue No.7 was not competent before the civil court? (2) Whether the subject matter of dispute between the parties including validity of the conferment of ownership rights in favour of the appellant could not be disputed before Civil Court? (3) Whether on the basis of revenue record, Jamabandis Exhibits DX-1 to DX-10, the appellant has to be held to be a tenant over suit land and he having acquired ownership rights, has established on record on the basis of Exhibits D-1, D-2 and D-3/A and the appellant has to be held to be owner in possession of the suit land? 4. The bone of contention in the present lis is the land entered in Khata No.21, Khatauni No.35, Khasra Nos.49, 61, 114, 121, 122 min, 256, 133, 144, 145, 148, 330/155, 157 min, 332/22 and 260, Kita 14, measuring 27-15 Bighas, situate in Mauja Shangri, Tehsil and District Solan. In view of the entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1988-89, the respondents herein referred to as ‘the plaintiffs’ have claimed themselves to be owners-in-possession of the suit land. The same has been inherited by them from late Shri Ram Kishan. Till 1979-80, the suit land came to be reflected in the Jamabandis in their ownership and possession, however, it is thereafter in the Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 the name of the defendant-appellant came to be reflected under Column No.2. He allegedly, a clever person, has managed such entries in connivance with the revenue staff and is now trying to interfere in their ownership and possession over the suit land. He allegedly, a clever person, has managed such entries in connivance with the revenue staff and is now trying to interfere in their ownership and possession over the suit land. The change in the revenue entries showing the defendant in possession of the suit land has been claimed to be illegal and as such no presumption is attached to such entries in the Jamabandis for the year 1984-85 and 1988-89, hence the suit with the following prayers: (a) The plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land and revenue entries in favour of the defendant qua the suit land are wrong and illegal. (b) The wrong revenue entries in favour of the defendant do not create any right, title or interest in favour of the suit land. (c) Defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit land. (d) Defendant is restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and further from causing damage, changing nature, raising construction or doing any such act, which may cause loss or injury to the plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever and through whomsoever, may kindly be passed. In case the Hon’ble Court comes to conclusion that plaintiffs are not in possession or has been dispossessed from suit land for any portion thereof in that eventuality decree for possession of the land may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to serve the ends of justice. Any other relief to which the plaintiffs are found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case, though no specific prayer for the same has been made may also be granted to the plaintiffs. 5. The defendant (since dead) when put to notice has contested the suit. While denying the claim of the plaintiffs as set out in the plaint being wrong, his stand as emerged from the perusal of the written statement is that his predecessor-in-interest and thereafter he remained in possession of the suit land under Ram Kishan, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and under them also in the capacity of non-occupancy tenant for the last so many years. He being a member of Scheduled Caste community, whereas the plaintiffs from upper caste and in a position to dominate the revenue agency managed to change the entries in the revenue record irrespective of he remained in possession of the suit land throughout in the capacity of tenant. Such entries showing the plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-interest as owners-in-possession of the suit land prior to 1984-85 have been claimed to be wrong, illegal and without any possession. It is on 1981 onwards the suit land is being entered correctly in his name. He, therefore, has rightly been shown in possession as non-occupancy tenant in the Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 and also Jamabandis issued subsequently. Proprietary rights even have also been conferred upon him and the compensation as assessed under the H.P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act stands deposited. Mutation of the suit land also stands attested and sanctioned in his name. The question of maintainability of the suit in civil Court has also been raised. 6. No replication has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the entries in the revenue record in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit land are wrong and illegal as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled, in the alternative, for possession of the suit land as prayed for? OPP 5. Whether the defendant is tenant in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit as alleged? OPD 8. Relief. 8. OPP 5. Whether the defendant is tenant in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit as alleged? OPD 8. Relief. 8. After taking on record the evidence oral as well as documentary and on hearing the parties on both sides, learned trial Court while answering issues No.1 to 5 together has concluded that the defendant was duly inducted tenant over the suit land and the entries in the revenue record showing him as owner-in-possession of the suit land except for the share of Smt. Ganga are legal and valid and as such the plaintiffs being not in possession thereof are not entitled to the decree for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative possession thereof. Issues No. 6 and 7, however, were answered against the defendants while holding that the suit was maintainable and that the civil Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the same. 9. Aggrieved by the findings so recorded by learned trial Court, the plaintiffs had assailed the same before learned lower appellate Court in an appeal. Learned lower appellate Court has reversed the findings so recorded by trial Court and decreed the suit by holding the plaintiffs as owners-in-possession of the suit land and the revenue entries to the contrary showing the defendant as owner-in-possession thereof have been declared to be wrong and illegal. The suit has also been decreed for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant. 10. The judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court is under challenge before this Court in the present appeal on several grounds, however, mainly that learned lower appellate Court has not appreciated the facts and circumstances and also the evidence available on record in its right perspective and as such the judgment and decree under challenge being perverse is not legally and factually sustainable. 11. Shri G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate has strenuously contended that the real point in controversy has neither been considered nor determined by learned lower appellate Court nor were the findings so recorded supported by evidence available on record. The presumption of truth attached to the latest entries in the revenue record is not at all rebutted from the evidence produced by the plaintiffs. B.C. Verma, Advocate has strenuously contended that the real point in controversy has neither been considered nor determined by learned lower appellate Court nor were the findings so recorded supported by evidence available on record. The presumption of truth attached to the latest entries in the revenue record is not at all rebutted from the evidence produced by the plaintiffs. Such entries, therefore, have been erroneously declared as illegal. The orders of mutation Ext.D-1 and D-9 attested and sanctioned in favour of defendant were never assailed by the plaintiffs by way of appeal and revision. Even there is no challenge thereto in the suit also. On the other hand, whatever compensation was due and payable, stands deposited by the defendant as per receipt Ext.DW-3/A. Defendant, as per entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1988- 89, has been recorded in physical possession of the suit land. Rather the entries in the record showing the predecessor-ininterest of the defendant as well as the defendant to be in possession of the suit land as tenant by way of Jamabandis for the years 1927-28 (Ext.DX-2), 1931-32 (Ext.DX-4), 1943-44 (Ext.DX- 5), 1947-48 (Ext.DX-6), 1951-52 (Ext.DX-7) and 1955-56 (Ext.DX-8), have also been ignored. The law that once a tenant to be presumed always a tenant subject to the contrary pleaded and proved, has also not been taken into consideration. The admission as has come on record by way of the testimony of PW-2 Mokshu Dhar in his cross-examination that the defendant was tenant under the plaintiffs since the time of their ancestors, i.e., for more than 20-22 years, the suit land is in front of the house of the defendant and the statement of PW-3 Ishwar Dutt to the same effect have also been ignored. Contradictions in the statement of PW-2 show that no tank nor any lift was there over the suit land, whereas according to PW-3 Ishwar Dutt lift belonging to PW-2 Mokshu Dhar exists over the suit land, have not been taken into consideration. PW-3 is none else, but uncle of plaintiff Kaumdi Dhar. Therefore, Shri Verma has urged that on reversal of the judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court the one passed by learned trial Court be affirmed. 12. PW-3 is none else, but uncle of plaintiff Kaumdi Dhar. Therefore, Shri Verma has urged that on reversal of the judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court the one passed by learned trial Court be affirmed. 12. On the other hand, Shri D.K. Sharma has mainly emphasized that the entries showing the defendant in possession of the suit land were un-authorized being made in the absence of the plaintiffs. No such entries in the name of defendant on the appointed day, i.e., the day when the proprietary rights under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act could have been conferred upon him. The mutation having been attested by Assistant Collector IInd Grade that too behind the back of the plaintiffs is stated to be illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. It has, therefore, been urged that for want of evidence showing that the defendant was inducted as tenant over the suit land and the attestation of mutation in his name behind the back of the plaintiffs, the suit has rightly been decreed by learned lower appellate Court. The same, therefore, has been sought to be affirmed. 13. The claims and counter-claims as set-forth on both sides have to be analyzed and weighed in the light of the legal questions framed in the present appeal at the time of its admission. 14. As a matter of fact, legal questions, i.e., No. 1 and 2 pertain to the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try and entertain the suit, which has been taken as preliminary by learned trial Court and decided vide a separate order passed on 6th January, 1997, which reads as follows: “Since the suit of plaintiffs is for correction of revenue entries without admitting the defendant to be in possession, therefore, the suit is not covered by Chunia Devi’s case as findings as to the status of defendant is not to be given by this Court as once defendant is found to be in possession the plaintiffs would be non-suited as in that event defendant’s possession would corroborate the correctness of revenue entries and belie the claim of plaintiffs to be in possession and in case defendant is not found in possession relief can be granted by the Court to plaintiffs as in that case presumption attached to the entries in the Jamabandi shall stand rebutted. The issue No. 7 is therefore decided against the defendant.” 15. This order was assailed before this Court by way of Civil Revision, registered as CR No.145 of 1997 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty reserved to the defendant to raise the same in appeal vide order dated 11th June, 1997. In view of the findings recorded by learned trial Court on issue No.7 the same have been decided against the defendant, of course, with the observations that the suit is for correction of revenue entries without admitting the defendant to be in possession of the suit land. The dispute was not found covered under Chunia Devi’s case. In the opinion of learned trial Judge, if defendant is held to be in possession of the suit land, the plaintiffs would be non-suited because in that event the defendant’s possession over the suit land corroborates the correctness of revenue entries and belies the claim of the plaintiffs to be in possession thereof. Also if the defendant is not found in possession of the suit land the entries to the contrary showing him in possession in the revenue record would stand rebutted. Therefore, on the question of jurisdiction, the trial Court found the question of jurisdiction having been arisen and the applicability of the law laid down by this Court in Chunia Devi’s case. This Court is in agreement with the findings so recorded because the frame of the suit reveals that a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction has been sought on the ground that it is the plaintiffs who are owners-in-possession of the suit land and the entries showing the defendant to be owner-in-possession thereof are wrong and illegal and in the alternative for possession in case they are found to be dispossessed from the suit land during the pendency of the suit. There is no iota of evidence that the plaintiffs have been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. 16. Now coming to the question that the conferment of ownership rights upon defendant could be disputed before civil Court, in the plaint there is not even a whisper qua conferment of proprietary rights upon defendant because the only case as set out in the plaint is that it is the plaintiffs, who are owners-in-possession of the suit land and the entries showing the defendant as owner-in-possession thereof are wrong, illegal, hence not binding upon them. The mutations Exts.D-1 and D-9 and for that matter the receipt Ext.DW-3/A with regard to deposit of the payment of compensation on conferment of proprietary rights have not at all been assailed. Therefore, such legal question also does not arise. 17. The question next needs determination, therefore, is that the evidence as has come on record by way of the documents Ext.DX-1 to DX-10 and Exts.D-1, D-2 and DW-3/A, is sufficient to hold the defendant, owner-in-possession of the suit land. In case the defendant is held to be owner-in-possession of the suit land, the plaintiffs’ claim that it is they who are owners-in-possession of the suit land would stand falsified. 18. Ext.DX-1 is the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1927- 28, which is in Urdu and its Hindi version is Ext.DX-2. Ext.DX-3 is the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1931-32 and translation thereof in Hindi version is Ext.DX-4. Ext.DX-5 is Jamabandi for the year 1943-44, Ext.DX-6 is Jamabandi for the year 1947-48, Ext.DX-7 is Jamabandi for the year 1951-52 and Ext.DX-8 is Jamabandi for the year 1955-56. Ext.D-9 is the copy of mutation No.698, whereas, Ext.D-10 is the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1993- 94. In the Jamabandis Exts.DX-1 and DX-3, translation whereof are Exts.DX-2 and DX-4 as well as Ext.DX-5 and Ext.DX-8 Ram Kishan, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, has been shown owner of the land described therein, whereas Bhaytu, the father of defendant Munnu alongwith others in possession thereof in the capacity of non-occupancy tenant. In Ext.DX-2 apart from the Khasra numbers bearing the suit land some other land total 35 kittas also find mentioned and the area thereof is 43-2 Bighas, whereas the suit land as detailed in the plaint, is comprised under 14 Khasra numbers, measuring 27-15 Bighas. Meaning thereby that in the year 1927-28 Bhaytu, father of defendant Munnu was in possession of the suit land in the capacity of non-occupancy tenant alongwith others. Similar are the entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1931-32, Ext.DX-4 meaning thereby that Bhaytu, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant was the tenant under owner Shri Ram Kishan, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs on payment of the rent/ Batai, i.e., the produce from the land in question to the extent of 1/3rd share. Similar are the entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1931-32, Ext.DX-4 meaning thereby that Bhaytu, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant was the tenant under owner Shri Ram Kishan, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs on payment of the rent/ Batai, i.e., the produce from the land in question to the extent of 1/3rd share. Said Shri Bhaytu and others were also recorded tenant over the land of aforesaid Shri Ram Kishan, as is apparent from the entries in the Jamabandis Ext.DX-5, DX-6, DX-7 and DX-8. True it is that on the death of Ram Kishan it is the plaintiffs, who inherited his estate, as per entries in remarks column of the Jamabandi for the year 1968-69 Ext.P-3. 19. Be it stated that the plaintiffs were owners of the suit land in equal shares. Mutation No.693 Ext.D-1 qua the land measuring 11-2 Bighas in the shares of Kaumdi Dhar and Mokshu Dhar, plaintiffs No.1 and 2, was attested and sanctioned by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade on 30th July, 1987 in their presence because their presence has been recorded in the order of mutation. Since plaintiffs Gopala and udham were minors, whereas Smt. Ganga widow mutation qua conferment of proprietary rights of the land in their respective shares could not be sanctioned and attested at that time, however, on attaining the age of majority of aforesaid Gopala and Udham mutation No.698, Ext.D-9 qua the land to the extent of 2/5 share belonging to them was attested and sanctioned in the name of defendant on 16th December, 1991. The land in the share of Smt. Ganga could not be mutated in favour of the defendant as she was widow, however, the land in her share is also shown in possession of the defendant in the capacity of non-occupancy tenant. A reference in this regard can be made to the Jamabandi for the year 1993-94 Ext.D-10. 20. The fact, therefore, remains that the defendant has acquired the ownership and is also in possession of the suit land to the extent of 4/5th share on conferment of proprietary rights and as regards the suit land to the extent of 1/5th share of Smt. Ganga, the same is in his possession in the capacity of non-occupancy tenant. 20. The fact, therefore, remains that the defendant has acquired the ownership and is also in possession of the suit land to the extent of 4/5th share on conferment of proprietary rights and as regards the suit land to the extent of 1/5th share of Smt. Ganga, the same is in his possession in the capacity of non-occupancy tenant. True it is that in the Jamabandis Exts.P-3, P-4, P-5, P-6/DX-8, P-7/DX-7, for the years 1968-69, 1963-64, 1959-60, 1955-56 and 1951-52 Shri Ram Kishan, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs has been recorded as owner-in-possession of the suit land. However, in the Jamabandis for the years 1955-56 Ext.PX-2 and 1959-60 Ext.PX-3, defendant Munnu has also been recorded in possession of the suit land being non-occupancy tenant with respect to the land entered in Khata No.8, Khatauni No.27. In the Jamabandi for the year 1988-89 Ext.PX-4 Munnu has been entered as owner-in-possession of the suit land to the extent of two shares and remaining three shares of Gopala, Udham and Smt. Ganga plaintiffs in the capacity of non-occupancy tenants. Such entries came to be reflected in the revenue record consequent upon the sanction of mutation No.693 on 30th July, 1987. 21. The defendant having become co-owner in the suit land to the extent of two shares remained in possession of rest of the suit land. Subsequently, mutation No.698 of the suit land to the extent of two shares of Gopala and Udham Ext.D-9 was also attested and sanctioned in his favour on 16th December, 1991, though in their absence as they opted not to put in appearance despite service. The defendant thus became owner of the suit land to the extent of their shares also. True it is that he is in possession of the land in the share of Smt. Ganga and in view of she is widow proprietary rights qua the land in her share could not be conferred upon him. The fact, however, remains that it is he who is in possession of the land in the share of plaintiff Ganga also. 22. The fact, however, remains that it is he who is in possession of the land in the share of plaintiff Ganga also. 22. The change in the revenue entries as per Jamabandis Exts.P-3 to P-7 showing Ram Kishan, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, as owner in possession of the suit land seems to be without any basis for the reason that right from the year 1927-28 to 1945-46 it is Bhaytu, predecessor-in-interest of defendant alongwith others, was in possession of the suit land in the capacity of non-occupancy tenant, on payment of rent (Batai), i.e., 1/3rd of the produce. How the long standing entries showing Bhaytu as non-occupancy tenant came to be changed, plaintiffs have failed to explain. It cannot also be believed that Bhaytu was inducted over some other land and not on the suit land. Which was that other land, the onus was on the plaintiffs to prove the same. They, however, failed to discharge such onus also. Therefore, the claim of the defendant that he being down-trodden, whereas the plaintiffs belonging to upper-caste have managed the change in the revenue entries in connivance with the revenue staff seems to be correct. 23. It is significant to note that one of the plaintiffs Mokshu Dhar while in the witness-box as PW-2 has admitted the defendant in possession of the suit land. Not only this, in the statement of defendant recorded on 26th May, 1993 during the course of proceedings in the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he tells us that it is about seven months ago before institution of the suit he had raised construction of the house over a portion of the suit land and the said house is in existence. Learned Counsel representing the plaintiffs in his statement recorded separately though disputed the statement of the defendant qua the construction having been raised prior to filing of the suit, however, agreed to the rest of the statement the defendant made. Learned Counsel has not disputed the existence of house over a portion of the suit land, however, disputed the construction thereof prior to the institution of the suit. Learned Counsel has not disputed the existence of house over a portion of the suit land, however, disputed the construction thereof prior to the institution of the suit. Nothing has come in the evidence that the defendant has raised the construction of house during the pendency of the suit, therefore, such type of material available on record is also suggestive of that the defendant was in possession of the suit land even at the time of institution of the suit also. 24. In the considered opinion of this Court, learned lower appellate Court has misread and misconstrued the evidence available on record while reversing well reasoned judgment passed by learned trial Court. Learned lower appellate Court has erred in holding that no evidence is on record showing that the defendant was inducted as tenant over the suit land and also qua the payment of rent, i.e., receipts etc. The long standing entries in the revenue record make it crystal clear that initially it is Bhaytu alongwith others, was in possession of the suit land in the capacity of tenant and thereafter it is defendant Munnu, who has been entered so therein. 25. I am not in agreement with the findings that the plaintiffs have proved themselves to be owners in possession of the suit land, as no cogent and reliable evidence is forthcoming in this regard. It is well settled that in view of there being conflicting entries in the revenue record the later entries should be relied upon. Therefore, when the entries right from the year 1927-28 till 1945-46 and even in 1955-56 and 1959-60 it is Bhaytu, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant and defendant himself has been reflected to be in possession of the suit land in the capacity of non-occupancy tenant, the stray entries in the Jamabandis Exts.P-3 to P-7 could have not been taken to arrive at a conclusion that it is Ram Kishan, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, was owners in possession of the suit land throughout. 26. The law laid down by this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others vs. Ajay Vij and Others, 2011 (1) Him. 26. The law laid down by this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and Others vs. Ajay Vij and Others, 2011 (1) Him. L.R. 417 and Kali Ram Thakur vs. Manorma Devi and Others, Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 116 that the proprietary rights under Section 104 of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act can only be conferred in case the entries on the appointed day exist in the name of the tenant, is not applicable in the case in hand for the reason that it is Bhaytu, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant and on his death defendant remained throughout in possession of the suit land in the capacity of non-occupancy tenant. Not only this, two mutations Ext.D-1 and D-9 have been attested and sanctioned and at the time of attestation of mutation Ext.D-1 presence of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 has been recorded, whereas plaintiffs No.3 and 4 failed to put in appearance despite service at the time of attestation of mutation Ext.D-9. 27. In view of the foregoing reasons, the law laid down again by this Court in Smt. Kartari Devi and Others vs. Udham Singh and Others, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 719 that a mutation attested behind the back of the landowner is against law, is also not applicable in the case in hand. As regards the judgment of this Court in Besru vs. Shibu, 1999 (1) Shim. L.C. 343, the same is not at all attracted for the reason that the land in the share of widow, i.e., plaintiff Smt. Ganga has not been mutated in the name of the defendant. 28. The law laid down in Lal Chand and Others vs. Pala, 1998 (2) SLJ 1526, has also no application in the given facts and circumstances for the reason that overwhelming evidence oral as well as documentary reveals that defendant Munnu and before him his father deceased Bhaytu right from 1927-28 onward remained in possession of the suit land in the capacity of non-occupancy tenant. True it is that this Court in a recent judgment Kaushalya Devi and Others vs. Smt. Sito Devi, Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 402, has held that the change of earlier revenue entries into the later revenue entries without any mutation/order passed by competent revenue authorities in this regard, the presumption of truth attached to such later entries stands rebutted. True it is that this Court in a recent judgment Kaushalya Devi and Others vs. Smt. Sito Devi, Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 402, has held that the change of earlier revenue entries into the later revenue entries without any mutation/order passed by competent revenue authorities in this regard, the presumption of truth attached to such later entries stands rebutted. However, this judgment is also distinguishable in the given facts and circumstances of the case in hand because here the old entries showing deceased Bhaytu to be in possession of the suit land were changed thereby showing Ram Kishan, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs as owner as well as in possession thereof without any order. Such entries were changed vide order of mutations, i.e., Exts.D-1 and D-9 passed by the competent revenue authority, i.e., Assistant Collector IInd Grade. The competence of Assistant Collector IInd Grade to attest mutations Exts.D-1 and D-9 has also been raised, however, unsuccessfully for the reason that Assistant Collector IInd Grade is competent to attest the mutation qua conferment of proprietary rights as per Rule 28 framed under the Act ibid and the requirement of attestation of mutation by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, as per Rule 29 is with regard to those cases where the dispute within the meaning of subsection (4) of Section 104 of the Act is raised and the Land Reforms Officer in his capacity as Assistant Collector 1st Grade is required to decide the same after holding enquiry into the dispute so raised. Therefore, when in the case in hand no dispute within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 104 of the Act has been raised, but in the case in hand Assistant Collector IInd Grade being the Revenue Officer was competent to attest and sanction the mutation. Support in this regard can be drawn from the judgment of Besru’s case supra and also Neelam Sood vs. Bhanuwati and Others, Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 524. 29. The substantial questions of law aforesaid stand answered accordingly. 30. The upshot of the discussion hereinabove would be that the judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court is not legally and factually sustainable and as such deserves to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, this appeal succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. 29. The substantial questions of law aforesaid stand answered accordingly. 30. The upshot of the discussion hereinabove would be that the judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court is not legally and factually sustainable and as such deserves to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, this appeal succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree under challenge in this appeal is hereby quashed and set aside and that passed by learned trial Court affirmed. No costs.