JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.04.2005, passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 32-CA/13 of 2004, affirming the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2004, passed by the learned Civil Judge( Senior Division) Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., in civil Suit No.190/1 of 2002, whereby suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction having been filed by the respondent/plaintiff came to be dismissed. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication as emerge from the pleadings are that respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction claiming that he has become owner in possession of land comprised in khata/khatauni No.55min/118min, khasra No.313, measuring 3-12 bighas, out of total land measuring 293-11 bighas, situated in village Kajwa, Tehsil Renuka Ji at Sangrah, District Sirmaur, H.P.( hereinafter referred to as the suit land), by way of adverse possession. As per plaintiff, prior to him Gollu and Sunder Singh son of Sh. Bhajnu, father of the plaintiff were in uninterrupted and open possession of the suit land for more than 60 years and defendants(hereinafter referred to as the appellants) have no concern with the suit land. Plaintiff further alleged in the plaint that appellant/defendant No.2 in collusion with appellant/defendant No.1 got the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff deleted from the revenue record vide letter No.228, dated 20.01.1984, passed by the District Collector, Sirmaur District at Nahan, which is illegal, null and void and not binding on the right, title or interest of the plaintiff. 3. Defendants/appellants by way of written statement refuted the aforesaid claim of the plaintiff, taking therein preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction, estoppel, limitation and valuation. On merits, defendants/appellants categorically stated in the written statement that Patwari of Patwar Circle Sangna had incorporated a rapat in rojnamcha regarding the change of entry with respect to cultivation without any legal basis and as such later on these entries were illegally incorporated in the jamabandis, whereby respondent/plaintiff was shown to be in possession of the suit land. On merits, defendants/appellants categorically stated in the written statement that Patwari of Patwar Circle Sangna had incorporated a rapat in rojnamcha regarding the change of entry with respect to cultivation without any legal basis and as such later on these entries were illegally incorporated in the jamabandis, whereby respondent/plaintiff was shown to be in possession of the suit land. Defendants/appellants further averred before the court below that in the month of April, 2002, plaintiff/respondent made an attempt to cultivate the suit land and after the report, proceedings under Section 4 of the H.P. Public Premises Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), were initiated by appellant/defendant No.2 while exercising his power of Collector under aforesaid Act. Defendants/appellants also claimed that proceedings, as referred above, are in progress. Defendants/appellants while specifically denying that plaintiff was in possession over the suit land contended that his name stands deleted from the revenue record in terms of direction issued by the District Collector, Sirmaur vide his letter No.228, dated 20.01.1984 and as such, suit having been filed by the respondent/plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff has been coming in possession of the suit land comprised under khata/khatauni No.55min/118min, khasra No.313, measuring 293-11 bighas to the extent of 3-12 bighas for the last more than 60 years and his possession is uninterrupted, unconcealed and hostile and he has become the owner of the same by way of adverse possession, as prayed? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP. 3. Whether the suit in the present from is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no enforceable cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. 5. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit in view of provisions of H.P. Public Premises Act? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his acts and conducts? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 9. Whether the plaintiff has efficacious alternative remedy under the H.P. Pubic Premises Act, hence, the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 10. Relief:- 5. OPD. 7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 9. Whether the plaintiff has efficacious alternative remedy under the H.P. Pubic Premises Act, hence, the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 10. Relief:- 5. Subsequently, learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence led on record by the respective parties, dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.2004. 6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.5.2004, passed by learned trial Court, appellant/plaintiff preferred an appeal under Section 96 CPC in the Court of learned District Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No.32- CA/13 of 2004. Aforesaid appeal having been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant was allowed, as a consequence of which, the plaintiff’s suit for declaration that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession on the suit land and the order dated 20.1.1984, passed by the District Collector, deleting the plaintiff’s name from the column of possession is wrong and illegal, came to be allowed. In the aforesaid background, appellants/defendants preferred instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, praying therein for dismissal of the suit having been preferred by the respondent/plaintiff after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge. 7. This Court vide order dated 16.11.2005, admitted the instant Regular Second Appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether mere longevity of possession will get perfected into adverse possession? 2. Whether learned court below have misread the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and passed the judgment/decree, which are against the law and facts on records?. 8. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and have carefully gone through the record made available. 9. During the proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to peruse the pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties viz-a-viz impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, perusal whereof, certainly suggest that findings returned by the learned first appellate court qua the plea of adverse possession taken by the plaintiff/respondent in his suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction is totally contrary to law and cannot be allowed to sustain. By now it is well settled that plea of adverse possession cannot be taken in affirmative, rather same can be used as shield. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala (2014)1SCC 669, wherein it has been held that even if the plaintiff is found to be in adverse possession, he/she cannot seek a declaration to the effect that such adverse possession has matured into ownership. Their lordships have held as under: “8. There cannot be any quarrel to this extent the judgments of the courts below are correct and without any blemish. Even if the plaintiff is found to be in adverse possession, it cannot seek a declaration to the effect that such adverse possession has matured into ownership. Only if proceedings filed against the appellant and appellant is arrayed as defendant that it can use this adverse possession as a shield/defence.” 10. Faced with aforesaid proposition of law, Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned Senior Advocate, representing the plaintiff/respondent, fairly stated that she will not be pressing claim of the plaintiff that he has become owner by way of adverse possession and as such, judgment passed by learned first appellate Court to that extent may be quashed and set-aside. However, Ms. Dua, learned Senior counsel contended that by way of suit, referred above, plaintiff while claiming title by way of adverse possession qua the suit land also sought declaration that order passed by the District Collector, Sirmaur vide letter No.228, dated 20.01.1984 may be declared illegal, null and void and not binding on the right, title or interest of the plaintiff and as such, findings returned by learned District Judge qua that aspect deserve to be upheld. 11. Mr. 11. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, representing the appellants/defendants while opposing the aforesaid submission having been made by learned counsel representing the plaintiff/respondent, contended that bare perusal of suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent seeking declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction, suggest that plaintiff had filed suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff has become owner in possession of suit land by way of adverse possession and no relief/prayer is/was made/sought to set-aside the entries recorded in the revenue record pursuant to letter No.228, dated 20.1.1984, passed by District Collector, Sirmaur, and as such, judgment passed by learned District Judge, which is totally contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Gurdwara Sahib” case deserve to be quashed and set-aside. 12. Since, learned counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff has fairly admitted that findings returned by learned District Judge, qua the plea of adverse possession raised by the plaintiff is not sustainable in the eyes of law, this Court sees no occasion to explore the answer, if any, to the substantial question of law No.1 and as such same is decided accordingly. 13. After having carefully perused the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff, this Court sees no force in the contention of learned Additional Advocate General, that no prayer is/was made by plaintiff in his suit filed for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction that entries recorded in the revenue record pursuant to letter No.228, dated 20.1.1984, passed by District Collector, Sirmaur be also quashed and set-aside. Rather, it is quite apparent from the bare reading of the plaint, especially para-2, that plaintiff specifically pleaded in the plaint that in the year,1984 (15th February, 1984), defendant No.2 in collusion with defendant No.1, got the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff deleted from the column of khasra Girdawari in terms of letter No.228, dated 20.01.1984, issued by District Collector, Sirmaur, at the back of the predecessor-in-interest and without the knowledge of the plaintiff changed the entry in Khasra Girdawari. It also emerge from the relief clause, as set up in the plaint that the plaintiff while seeking decree of declaration to the effect that he has become owner in possession of suit land by way of adverse possession also sought declaration that orders No.228-29, dated 20.1.1984, passed by the D.C. Sirmaur at Nahan is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff and as such, this Court sees valid reason to examine/analyze the correctness of findings returned by the learned District Judge, in the appeal preferred by the respondent/plaintiff, as far as change in revenue entries pursuant to order dated 20.1.1984, passed by the District Collector, Sirmaur at Nahan, is concerned. 14. Before adverting to the plea raised by Mr. P.M.Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, that there is misappreciation, misreading and misconstruction of oral as well as documentary evidence by the learned District Judge while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent/plaintiff, this Court deems it proper to take note of certain undisputed facts. In the case at hand, as has been observed above, appellants/defendants while refuting the claim of the plaintiff/respondent specifically stated that Patwari, Patwar Circle, Sangna had incorporated rapat in the rojnamcha regarding the change of entry regarding cultivation without any legal basis and as such, entries in the jamabandis showing the plaintiff/respondent to be in possession are illegal. Interestingly, in the written statement, defendants claimed that in the month of April, 2002 plaintiff tried to cultivate the suit land and authority after having received the report, initiated proceedings under Section 4 of the Act. Defendants in the written statement specifically stated that said proceedings against the plaintiff are in progress. This Court taking note of aforesaid specific pleading with regard to pendency of the proceedings before the Collector under H.P. Public Premises Act, directed the appellant/Department to make available record of eviction proceedings, if any, initiated against the respondent/plaintiff. 15. Today, during the proceedings of the case, Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, made available the record pertaining to the proceedings initiated against the respondent/plaintiff under H.P. Public Premises Act, 1971 for alleged encroachment by the plaintiff on the forest land. 15. Today, during the proceedings of the case, Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, made available the record pertaining to the proceedings initiated against the respondent/plaintiff under H.P. Public Premises Act, 1971 for alleged encroachment by the plaintiff on the forest land. Written statement was filed by the appellants/defendants on 27th February, 2003, whereas perusal of the record made available to this Court clearly suggest that proceedings under H.P. Public Premises Act, 1971 came to be initiated against the respondent/plaintiff in the year, 2015, that too during the pendency of this Regular Second Appeal. 16. Though, Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned Senior Advocate, representing the respondent/plaintiff, after having perused the record made available by the appellants/defendants, made an endeavour to prove that at no point of time respondent/plaintiff was associated by appellant/Department while carrying out eviction proceedings against him, but that fact may not be relevant at this stage. Perusal of record suggest that pursuant to eviction proceedings initiated against the respondent/plaintiff, Collector-Cum-DFO, Renuka Ji vide order dated 30.04.2016 passed in exercise of power under sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 held the plaintiff/respondent to be in unauthorized occupation of the suit land and accordingly directed him to vacate the premises within 15 days of the date of receipt of this order. Vide show cause notice dated 7.12.2015, Collector, Renuka Ji called upon the respondent/plaintiff to show cause that why he be not evicted on account of encroachment on government forest land in RF Ghaton, mauja Kazwa, khasra No.313/2, measuring 9-16 bighas. It is not in dispute that khasra number as mentioned in show cause notice is/was subject matter of the suit having been filed by the respondent/plaintiff. 17. It also emerge from the record of eviction proceedings that pursuant to eviction order dated 28.05.2016, passed by Collector, field Kanungo visited the spot and got the land measuring 6-4 bighas, out of 9-16 bighas vacated from the respondent/plaintiff. Field Kanungo in his report stated that since there is order of learned District Judge, Nahan in civil Suit No.190/1 of 2002, respondent/plaintiff cannot be evicted as far as 3-12 bighas is concerned. Field Kanungo in his report stated that since there is order of learned District Judge, Nahan in civil Suit No.190/1 of 2002, respondent/plaintiff cannot be evicted as far as 3-12 bighas is concerned. Statement of respondent/plaintiff recorded at the time of proceedings conducted by field Kanungo on 7.6.2017, clearly suggests that the respondent/plaintiff only claimed himself to be in possession of the land qua 3-12 bighas, whereas possession qua remaining land measuring 6-4 bighas was allegedly surrendered on the spot by the respondent/plaintiff. 18. Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned Senior Advocate, vehemently contended that once proceedings were pending before this Court, especially when there was a specific finding with regard to entries made in the revenue record qua 3-12 bighas of the land in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, there was no occasion for the authorities to proceed with the proceedings under Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971. Learned counsel also contended that appellants/defendants virtually mislead the court by stating in the written statement that proceedings under Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, are pending against the respondent/plaintiff, whereas record produced before this Court today clearly suggest that proceeding under Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery), Act only came to be initiated on 17th December, 2015 i.e. during the pendency of the Regular Second Appeal. 19. This Court after having carefully perused the pleadings, especially the stand taken by the appellants/defendants in the written statement vis-a-vis record made available to this court, sees substantial force in the argument of learned counsel representing the respondent/plaintiff that appellants/defendants have made an attempt to preempt this Court from passing any order qua the findings returned by the learned District Judge, on the issue of change made in the revenue entries by the defendant without associating the respondent/plaintiff. 20. At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that plaintiff in para-2 of the plaint, categorically alleged that defendant No.2 in collusion with defendant No.1 got the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff deleted from the column of Khasra Girdawari in term of letter No.228, dated 20.1.1984, issued by the District Collector, Sirmaur at the back of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and without the knowledge of the plaintiff. But, interestingly appellants/defendants nowhere in their written statement refuted aforesaid specific assertions/allegations made by the respondent/plaintiff, rather reply on behalf of appellants/defendants to aforesaid plea as made in para-2 of the written statement is vague, evasive and not tangible. Appellants/defendants in written statement to para No.2 of the plaint contended that plaintiff has started to encroach upon the land, which is government land under the possession of forest department, under the garb of false entry in the revenue record and as such, order of Collector is not illegal and is within its jurisdiction. Appellants/defendants further contended that respondent/plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land as alleged as his name stands deleted from the revenue record in terms of order passed by District Collector, Sirmaur. Aforesaid stand taken by the appellants/defendants in the written statement is totally contrary to the record of eviction proceedings, wherein it is own case of the defendants that they initiated proceedings against the respondent/plaintiff under H.P. Public Premises Act, for eviction as he allegedly encroached upon the government. If the plaintiff was not in unauthorized possession of the government land what was the occasion to the authorities/defendants to initiate proceedings under the Act. 21. Leaving everything aside, statement made by DW-1, Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Patwari, clearly suggests that illegal occupation of respondent/plaintiff’s was qua the land measuring 5-7 bighas. Aforesaid witness while answering suggestion put to him that respondent/plaintiff is/was in possession of land measuring 3-12 bighas, categorically admitted that respondent/plaintiff is in possession of land measuring 3-12 bighas of land and not 5-7 bighas. He feigned ignorance that plaintiff house is situated on the suit land and he is cultivating the suit land for the last more than 60-70 years. 22. Similarly, DW-2, Sh. Netar Singh, in his cross-examination admitted that the plaintiff is in possession over 3-12 bighas of land from the time of his forefather, entry qua which stands reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1962-63. Aforesaid witness categorically admitted that possession of respondent/plaintiff and his forefather has been coming on record since 1962-1963. He also his feigned ignorance to the suggestion put to him that in the year, 1984, department of forest got entries changed with the connivance of the revenue officers behind the back of the plaintiff/respondent. 23. Aforesaid witness categorically admitted that possession of respondent/plaintiff and his forefather has been coming on record since 1962-1963. He also his feigned ignorance to the suggestion put to him that in the year, 1984, department of forest got entries changed with the connivance of the revenue officers behind the back of the plaintiff/respondent. 23. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to Ex.P-6, available at page 52 of the record of court below i.e. Khasra Girdawari. Perusal of Khasra Girdwari Ex.P-6, clearly suggests, that name of respondent/plaintiff came to be deleted from the column of ‘kasht’ cultivation solely on the basis of communication dated 20.1.1984, passed by District Collector, Sirmaur. This Court was unable to lay its hand on any document available on record suggestive of the fact that prior to deletion of the name of the respondent/plaintiff from the column of kasht possession as stood reflected in the jamabandi for the year, 1962-63 Ex.P-1, Jamabandi for the year, 1967-68 Ex.P-2, jamabandi for the year, 1977-78 Ex.P-3 and jamabandi for the year 1982-83 Ex.P-4, order, if any, for correction of revenue entries on the basis of rapat in rojnamcha, if any, prepared by Patwari, was issued by the competent authority. Similarly, there is nothing on record, from where it can be inferred that District Collector, Nahan at the time of passing order dated 20.1.1984 ever issued notice to the respondent/plaintiff. Interestingly, appellants/defendants have neither placed on record rapat rojnamcha nor order dated 20.1.1984, passed by District Collector, whereby name of respondent/plaintiff was ordered to be deleted from the revenue record. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, while inviting attention of this Court to document Ex.P-7, made an endeavour to persuade this court that before effecting change in entry vide order dated 20.1.1984, Tehsildar, Shillai had prepared rapat rojnamcha and as such, there is no force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that change in the revenue entry was without any basis or without the order of the competent authority. Aforesaid plea having been made by learned Additional Advocate General deserves outright rejection because perusal of Ex.P-7 itself suggest that vide communication dated 20.1.1984, Collector Sirmaur, had directed Tehsildar, Shillai/Renukaji to correct entries in the revenue record. Aforesaid plea having been made by learned Additional Advocate General deserves outright rejection because perusal of Ex.P-7 itself suggest that vide communication dated 20.1.1984, Collector Sirmaur, had directed Tehsildar, Shillai/Renukaji to correct entries in the revenue record. Further careful perusal of Ex.P-7 suggest that the Collector, Sirmaur taking note of the fact that in Tehsil, Shillai and Renukaji, entries of possession qua the government land were not recorded correctly in the revenue record by the revenue authorities, directed revenue authorities of Tehsil Shillai and Renuka Ji to check all such entries pertaining to the government land and take suitable action as warranted in law. On the strength of aforesaid general order (Ex.P7), which was with regard to Tehsil Shillai and Renukaji, revenue authorities proceeded to delete the name of respondent/plaintiff from the revenue record without associating him. As has been taken note above, order dated 20.1.1984 is/was not placed on record by the appellant/defendant and as such, it is not understood that on what basis authorities ordered for deletion of the name of the respondent/plaintiff from the revenue record, especially when respondent/plaintiff or his forefather had been coming in possession qua the suit land since the year, 1962-63 as taken note above. Patwari concerned taking note of the aforesaid communication dated 20.1.1984 issued by learned Collector Sirmaur, proceeded to record rapat in rojnamcha (Ex.P-7) that plaintiff under the garb of illegal entries have encroached upon the government land and therefore without associating the respondent/plaintiff, proceeded to delete his name from the revenue record. 24. It is well settled that all the changes in rights, rents and possession is required to be recorded by Patwari strictly in accordance with the government instructions issued vide letter No.10-5/73-II, dated 4.9.1980, whereby it is incumbent upon the Patwari to give information of such changes to the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar as the case may be and thereafter Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar shall inquire and given reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. In this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Jagan Nath versus Om Prakash 2008(1) Shim.L.C 45 , wherein it has been held as under:- 10. In this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Jagan Nath versus Om Prakash 2008(1) Shim.L.C 45 , wherein it has been held as under:- 10. In Tulsa Singh v. Agya Ram and others, 1995(1) S.L.J.428, the Court held that the change of tenancy rights has to be in accordance with Clause 9.8 of the H.P. Land Records Manual which deals with the change of entry in khasra Girdawari and the relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “The crops will be entered in the khasra girdawari, as the inspection proceeds, in the column provided for the purpose. The change in rights, rents and possession will be noted in the appropriate column in pencil. And, where the boundaries or area of a field have changed in such a manner as to require a correction of the field map, the Patwari will make a rough measurement, sufficient for the crop entries. All changes in rights, rents and possession shall be recorded by the Patwari in pencil and by putting a cross in pencil in columns 12,16,20,24 and 28 of khasra girdawari in accordance with Government instructions issued vide letter No.10-5/73-II, dated 4.9.1980. As per these instructions, the Patwari will give information of such changes to the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar as the case may be. The Tehsildar/Naib-Tehsildar will inquire and given reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. The inquiry should be completed within three months and the entries will be made in khasra girdawari according to the orders passed by the Revenue Officers after entering in his diary.” “14. Applying the aforesaid principles, I am of the view that in the present case, Civil Court could entertain and decide the controversy involved in the suit and its jurisdiction is not barred on two counts: (i) that the plaintiff/appellant who is the owner in possession of the suit land never accepted the status of the defendant/respondent as the tenant in the suit land. Therefore, there is dispute between the parties with regard to its status of landlord and tenant, (ii) the statutory authority while changing the revenue entries have not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure and the provisions of the Act( Section 46 of the H.P.Land Revenue Act) has not been complied with. Therefore, there is dispute between the parties with regard to its status of landlord and tenant, (ii) the statutory authority while changing the revenue entries have not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure and the provisions of the Act( Section 46 of the H.P.Land Revenue Act) has not been complied with. The procedure prescribed for effecting the revenue entries has not been carried out is clear from the plaintiff stand that entries were recorded ex parte and without his consent. The present case would fall within the exception carved out in Chunnia Devi, Dhulabhai and Krishan Kumar (Supra). This Court in RSA No.221 of 1991 titled as Ramesh Kumar and others v. Mandir Thor, decided on 1.6.2007, in somewhat identical circumstance has held that the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, in my view, the lower appellate Court has wrongly applied the ratio of law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Chunnia Devi(supra) and consequently wrongly reversed the findings returned by the trial Court on the point of jurisdiction.” 25. It is quite apparent from the statements of DW-1 and DW-2 that no notice, whatsoever was issued by the appellant/department before effecting the change in the revenue entries. But even perusal of cross-examination conducted on respondent/plaintiff also suggest that no suggestion was put to him that suit land was in possession of State of Himachal Pradesh (Forest department) and plaintiff was heard before deletion of his name from the column of possession in record of Right. As has been discussed hereinabove, jamabandi for the year, 1962-63 Ex.P-1, Jamabandi for the year,1967-68 Ex.P-2, jamabandi for the year,1977-78 Ex.P-3 and jamabandi for the year 1982-83 Ex.P-4, clearly depicts that suit land had been coming in the possession of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and plaintiff, for the first time in jamabandi for the year, 1996-97 (Ex.P-5), name of department of Forest came to be reflected in the column of possession. It is not understood if in the year 1996-97 appellant/department was found to be in possession of suit land as shown in the jamabandi for the year, 1996-97, why defendants initiated proceedings under H.P. Public Premises Act, 1971 for eviction. 26. It is not understood if in the year 1996-97 appellant/department was found to be in possession of suit land as shown in the jamabandi for the year, 1996-97, why defendants initiated proceedings under H.P. Public Premises Act, 1971 for eviction. 26. After having carefully perused the evidence/material on record, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that defendants have not placed any tangible evidence on record that the plaintiff was heard by the authorities before effecting change in the revenue entries, rather it stands duly proved on record that change in revenue entries were made by the revenue authorities pursuant to order dated 20.1.1984 issued by District Collector, Sirmaur, whereby general instructions were issued to revenue authorities of Tehsil Shillai/Renuka Ji to take steps for correcting revenue record since some illegalities and discrepancies were detected in the record. 27. Similarly, there is nothing on record placed by the defendants to show that plaintiff was not in possession since 1962-63 and his possession was of encroacher, rather change in the revenue record were made in the year, 1984 unilaterally by defendants without associating respondent/plaintiff and even thereafter no steps, if any, were taken by the appellant/department to initiate proceedings, if any, for eviction against the respondent/plaintiff on account of encroachment on the government land. Since, no action pursuant to change made in the revenue entries was taken by the appellants/defendants, respondent/plaintiff continued to be in possession of the suit land and it was in the year, 2002 when defendant No.2 through its staff made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land forcibly and respondent plaintiff filed suit in the competent court of law. 28. It is quite apparent from the record that eviction proceedings under H.P. Public Premises Act, 1971, for alleged encroachment on the forest land came to be initiated against the respondent/plaintiff in the year, 2015 i.e. during the pendency of this Regular Second Appeal. Even Field Kanungo while complying with the eviction order dated 28.05.2016, passed by Collector, specifically recorded in his report that since there is order of learned District Judge, Nahan passed in civil Suit No.190/1 of 2002, respondent/plaintiff cannot be evicted as far as 3-12 bighas is concerned. Even Field Kanungo while complying with the eviction order dated 28.05.2016, passed by Collector, specifically recorded in his report that since there is order of learned District Judge, Nahan passed in civil Suit No.190/1 of 2002, respondent/plaintiff cannot be evicted as far as 3-12 bighas is concerned. It clearly emerge from the record that eviction proceedings, as referred above, before the Collector, came to be initiated by the defendant during the pendency of Regular Second Appeal and as such defendant cannot be allowed to take advantage of eviction order, if any, passed by the Collector, especially when such order was passed during the pendency of Regular Second Appeal before this Court, secondly even dehors these proceedings the defendants were required to independently establish their title in order to rebut the presumption as attached to the revenue entries in terms of Section 45 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. In the instant case, defendants were required to prove as to how entries showing predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff and thereafter plaintiff were wrongly and incorrectly recorded. It is well settled that revenue authorities are bound by order, judgment an decree of civil Court and not vice versa and as such, eviction order, if any, passed by Collector, under H.P. Public Premises Act, 1971 that too in the proceedings initiated during the pendency of the instant appeal have no relevance. In this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and others versus Lachhu Ram and others 2014(2) Shim. Local Commissioner 753 has held as under:- “8. No doubt, as per copy of order Ex. D-1, correction has been ordered regarding the land in dispute in favour of Ram Asra and Ram Lok and appeal against that order has also been dismissed vide order Ex. D-2. The copy of Rojnamcha is Ex.DW 1/A according to which the effect was given to this order. The statements of the parties were recorded by the Settlement Officer are Ex. DW 4/A to Ex. DW 4/F and the statement of plaintiff Harnama Ex. PW 4/B reveals that he had stated before the Settlement Officer that civil suit was pending inter-se the parties before the civil court. Therefore, it is clear that order was passed by the Settlement Officer, when the civil suit was already pending. 9. DW 4/A to Ex. DW 4/F and the statement of plaintiff Harnama Ex. PW 4/B reveals that he had stated before the Settlement Officer that civil suit was pending inter-se the parties before the civil court. Therefore, it is clear that order was passed by the Settlement Officer, when the civil suit was already pending. 9. I have gone through the record of the case to determine as to which proceeding was initiated first in point of time. The record reveals that civil suit had been instituted in the trial court on 7.8.1986, whereas the proceedings before the Settlement Officer were launched definitely after the initiation of the civil suit. In fact, the documents of Settlement Officer exhibited on record show different dates of institution, like 26.8.1986, 21.9.1986, 7.8.1986 and 1.1.1987 etc. But nonetheless the fact remains that in case all documents are read together, then also, these clearly establish that proceedings before the settlement Officer were initiated by the defendants after the proceedings were pending in the civil court. 10. To my mind, the defendants can take no advantage of the revenue order passed by the Settlement Officer, for more than one reason, firstly, the said order was passed when the proceedings were already pending before the civil court, secondly even dehors these proceedings the defendants are required to independently establish their title in order to rebut the presumption as attached to the revenue entries in terms of section 45 of H.P. Land Revenue Act. The defendants are required to prove as to how the entries are wrong or have been incorrectly recorded. 19. Admittedly the correction of revenue entries have been ordered by the revenue authorities during the pendency of the proceedings in the civil court the same would be of no avail as it is settled law that revenue authorities are bound by the order, judgment and decree of the civil court and not vice versa. In view of the aforesaid discussion and findings, the substantial questions of law are answered against the defendants- appellants.” 29. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, findings returned by the learned first appellate court that plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest were neither notified nor were given an opportunity of being heard before the deletion of their names, deserve to be upheld. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, findings returned by the learned first appellate court that plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest were neither notified nor were given an opportunity of being heard before the deletion of their names, deserve to be upheld. The change made in the column of possession on the strength Ex.P-7 is absolutely unauthorized having no binding effect on the right, title and interest of respondent/plaintiff and accordingly judgment of first appellate court is set-aside to the extent of its finding qua the plea of adverse possession. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.