JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The plaintiffs/landowners' suit was partly decreed qua relief of declaration besides qua relief of possession. However, relief of injunction was refused. In an appeal carried therefrom by the aggrieved tenant/defendant, before, the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal of the defendant/tenant. Being aggrieved therefrom, the defendant/tenant has instituted the instant appeal before this Court, whereby, he concerts to beget its reversal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that land measuring 0-38-39 hects, bearing Khewat No.2, Khatauni No.2. Khasra No.328/2, as entered in the missal Haquiat Bandobast Jadid Sani for the year 1985-86, situate in village Basooni, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and defendant has no right, title or interest over the same. The entires in the revenue record in the name of defendant as non-occupancy tenant and mutation No.4 regarding conferment of Proprietary rights sanctioned by the AC 2nd Grade, Amb on 29.9.1993 in favour of the defendant is contrary to the statutory provisions as envisaged under the Act and also order of Collector, Amb dated 23.9.1996 is wrong, illegal, void with a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner over the suit land or cutting, removing any tress, grass extracting resin and selling the resin and in the alternative decree for possession. It has been pleaded that the suit land is jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and defendant who is very clever and shrewed person, in connivance with the Settlement Naib Tehsildar, Panjoa has wrongly and illegally procured entries in his favour in respect of the suit land at the back of the plaintiffs. The defendant was never inducted as tenant nor ever he came in possession of the suit land. The suit land is still in possession of the plaintiffs and after knowing about the order of the Naib Tehsildar, Panjoa, the plaintiffs have filed an appeal before the Collector, Una, who accepted the appeal and set aside the order of Naib Tehsildar, Panjoa dated 22.2.1987 and further remanded the case for fresh inquiry to Tehsildar, Amb, which is still pending. The defendant during the pendency of the suit, in connivance with the revenue field staff wrongly and illegally got entered mutation No.4 on 29.9.1993 at the back of the plaintiffs without issuance of any notice from AC 2nd Grade, Amb. The said order is illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Act as well as principles of natural justice. The defendant have no right, title or interest over the suit land, hence, the present suit. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections inter alia cause of action, maintainability, estoppel, jurisdiction, suit being bad for non joinder of necessary parties, suit being barred under Section 41(h) of H.P. Specific Relief Act and limitation. On merits, it was alleged that the suit land was coming in possession of the defendant for the last 30 years as tenant on payment of Chakuta rent to the plaintiffs. Now after coming into force of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, the defendant has become owner of the same. The plaintiffs are big landlord and their land is situated in various villages. During settlement operation, the revenue entries in respect of suit land were correct in the name of defendant by the revenue officer as non-occupancy tenant. The entries have been made in accordance with factual possession on the spot and plaintiffs have also admitted possession of the defendant. The defendant have denied other averments made in the plaint. It has been admitted that mutation No.4 in respect of proprietary rights was sanctioned in favour of the defendant who is now owner of the suit land. 4. The plaintiffs/respondents herein filed replication to the written statement of the defendant/appellant herein, wherein, they denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether plaintiffs and proforma defendants No.2 to 4 are owners in possession of suit land, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether order of N.T. Settlement Panjoa dated 28.2.1987 is illegal, void as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether entry of suit land in favour of defendant No.1 qua tenancy is wrong, as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed for? OPP 5. OPP. 2. Whether order of N.T. Settlement Panjoa dated 28.2.1987 is illegal, void as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether entry of suit land in favour of defendant No.1 qua tenancy is wrong, as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed for? OPP 5. If plaintiffs are proved out of possession, whether they are entitled to the relief of possession in the alternative, as claimed? OPP 6. Whether the suit is within time? OPP 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 8. Whether act and conduct of plaintiffs is bar to the suit, as alleged? OPD 9. Whether Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit, as alleged? OPD. 10. Whether suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD 11. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the defendant/appellant before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the defendant/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before this Court wherein he assails the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission on 14.07.2004, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the learned first appellate Court erred in holding that civil courts have jurisidction to try the suit? Substantial question of Law No.1. 8. Whether the learned first appellate Court erred in holding that civil courts have jurisidction to try the suit? Substantial question of Law No.1. 8. The learned trial Court while affording vis-a-vis the plaintiff, the apposite declaratory relief claimed in respect of the suit khasra numbers, relied upon a judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in case titled as Chuhniya Devi versus Jindhu Ram, 1991 SLC 223, as also it relied upon various other judgments reported in AIR 1979, S.C., 653, AIR 1979, S.C. 871 and AIR 1971 S.C. 2320 , wherein, it stands propounded, of, Civil Courts being empowered to test the legality of mutations attested or orders made by Revenue Officers concerned, whereunder, proprietary rights stand conferred upon the tenant, especially when the order attesting mutations, is, visibly gripped with an infirmity of jurisdictional dis-empowerments besides is infected with a vice of its infracting the principle of audi alteram partem, whereupon, with the aforesaid tenets being evidently satiated, it hence concluded that the impugned order rendered by the Revenue Officers concerned, whereby, he attested mutations in respect of the conferment of proprietary rights vis-a-vis the defendant/tenant, standing hence stained with the aforesaid vices. In sequel, it concluded, of, Civil Courts holdings) jurisdiction for testing the legality(ies) of the impugned mutations. 9. The learned First Appellate Court also proceeded to affirm the findings recorded qua the aforesaid facet, by the learned trial Court. Since, this Court is enjoined to answer the hereinabove extracted substantial question of law, directly impinging upon the jurisdiction of Civil Courts, to try suits in respect of legality(ies) of the apposite impugned orders, whereunder, proprietary rights under the mandate embodied in Section 104 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), stood hence conferred upon the tenant/defendant, by, the Revenue Officer concerned, thereupon, the relevant record is enjoined to be delved into, for making discernments therefrom, whether the Revenue Officer concerned, in recording the impugned mutations, hence, infracted the principles of natural justice or was jurisdictionally dis-empowered to make the impugned orders. Significantly, with evident surfacing, of, the aforesaid vices, thereupon, Civil Courts would stand vested with jurisdiction to try the apposite Civil Suit, in exceptions besides in derogations, of, the general rule of any order rendered by Revenue Officers exercising jurisdiction under the Act, being un-amenable for impeachment before Civil Courts. 10. Significantly, with evident surfacing, of, the aforesaid vices, thereupon, Civil Courts would stand vested with jurisdiction to try the apposite Civil Suit, in exceptions besides in derogations, of, the general rule of any order rendered by Revenue Officers exercising jurisdiction under the Act, being un-amenable for impeachment before Civil Courts. 10. The defendant/tenant would be foisted with a tenacious leverage, to, validate the order recorded by the Naib Tehsildar, order whereof is borne in Ex.P-10, whereby proprietary rights stood conferred upon him, “only” when he was able to establish the imperative statutory conditions precedent, comprised in his evidently prior thereto holding the status of a “gair maurusi” upon the suit khasra numbers. The revenue records, apposite to the suit khasra numbers, do not, display that at any time prior to or in years immediately subsequent to the coming into force of the provisions of the Act, the status of the defendant/tenant being borne therein to be of a “gair maurusi” upon the suit khasra numbers. However, only when under order, borne in Ex. P-5, recorded on 28.2.1987, by the Naib Tehsildar Resettlement, Panjowa, a direction was rendered therein, for, correction of revenue records with respect to the suit khasra numbers, qua thereupon the defendant/tenant coming to be reflected therein, as a tenant, upon the suit land, on payment of rent of Rs.40/-. Entries in consonance therewith found occurrence in Ex.P-1, exhibit whereof is a copy of jamabandi for the year 1985-1986. However, the order of the Naib Tehsildar borne in Ex. P-5, stood, challenged by the plaintiff before the Settlement Collector, who under orders recorded on 16.12.1993, orders whereof are borne in Ex. P-3, set aside the orders occurring in Ex. P-5 also he remanded the matter to the Naib Tehsildar concerned for enabling the latter to record afresh decision thereon. However, the order of the Naib Tehsildar borne in Ex. P-5, stood, challenged by the plaintiff before the Settlement Collector, who under orders recorded on 16.12.1993, orders whereof are borne in Ex. P-3, set aside the orders occurring in Ex. P-5 also he remanded the matter to the Naib Tehsildar concerned for enabling the latter to record afresh decision thereon. A perusal of the records, discloses that the orders borne in Ex.P-3, stood not, challenged by the defendant before the Appellate Authority, thereupon, it attained finality also the order borne in Ex.P-3 has not been demonstrated to be complied by the Naib Tehsildar concerned, hence, effects thereof is of the status of the defendant, as a “gair maurusi” under the plaintiffs/landowners upon the suit land is still under cloud also effect thereof is that there is no un-controverted clinching material, yet, on record in respect of the defendant/tenant being hence entitled to seek apposite automatic conferment of proprietary rights or his being entitled, to, in respect of suit khasra numbers, hence, seek validation of the impugned orders, conspicuously when the imperative statutory condition precedent is not yet clinchingly established. Plaintiff Narinder Parkash in his deposition comprised in his cross-examination, has testified in respect of all the aforesaid facets, deposition whereof remains unrebutted. Moreover, with Ex. P-3 also acquiring finality, thereupon, reverence was enjoined to be meted thereto. Conspicuously, the order of mutation comprised in Ex. P-10, whereunder proprietary rights in respect of the suit khasra numbers, stood, conferred upon the tenant/defendant, stood recorded on 29.9.1993, hence, subsequent to the institution of an appeal by the plaintiffs against the orders made by the Naib Tehsildar concerned, order whereof is borne in Ex.P-5, whereby the relevant revenue records were directed to be corrected by the concerned in respect of the defendant/tenant being reflected as a “gair maurusi” in respect of the suit land, orders whereof stood reversed by the Settlement Collector under orders, borne in Ex. P-5. A perusal of the impugned order, borne in Ex.P-10 discloses that there is, no, allusion therein qua the pendency of an appeal against the orders borne in Ex.P-5, in appeal whereof orders borne in Ex.P-3 stood pronounced. P-5. A perusal of the impugned order, borne in Ex.P-10 discloses that there is, no, allusion therein qua the pendency of an appeal against the orders borne in Ex.P-5, in appeal whereof orders borne in Ex.P-3 stood pronounced. The effect thereof is of, in the Revenue Officer concerned proceeding to record Ex.P-10, his not eliciting the presence before him of the landowners, conspicuously, when on theirs being summoned besides theirs recording their participation before him, thereupon they would have been assuredly facilitated to reveal to him, the trite factum of an appeal preferred against the orders borne in Ex.P-5, remaining un-adjudicated, whereupon, hence with the status thereat of the defendant as a “gair maurusi” vis-a-vis the suit land, hence, coming under a cloud also may have hence interdicted the Revenue Officer concerned to omit to record the impugned orders. The inevitable sequel therefrom, is, that the impugned order borne in Ex.P-10, is infected with a pervasive vice of its infracting the tenet of audi alteram partem, corollary whereof, is, that with the mandate rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in a case titled Chuhniya Devi versus Jindhu Ram, 1991(2) S.L.J. 1082, holding there within certain exceptions vis-a-vis the ouster of jurisdiction of civil Courts, in, respect of matters falling within the domain of Section 112 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, exceptions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “64. …............................................ (a) that an order made by the competent authority under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, is open to challenge before a civil court to the extent that it relates to matters falling within the ambit of section 37(3) and section 46 of the Act; and (b) the civil court has no jurisdiction to go into any question connected with the conferment of proprietary rights under section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, except in a case where it is found that the statutory authorities envisaged by that Act had not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or where the provisions of the Act had not been complied with.” (p...1098) One of exceptions whereof, is, of Civil Courts being empowered to try any civil suit, as constituted before it, wherein, aspersions are cast qua legality of orders pronounced by Revenue Officers, aspersions whereof make evident display of Revenue Officers begetting infraction of the principles of natural justice. Hence, when Ex.P10, for reasons aforestated makes, a visible display of infraction being meted by the Revenue Officers concerned vis-a-vis the principles of natural justice, thereupon the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit. 11. Be that as it may, the impugned order borne in Ex.P10, stood assailed by the landowners in an appeal constituted before the Collector, Amb Sub Division, appeal whereof sequeled a decision borne in Ex. P-4, whereby the plaintiffs/landowners' appeal against the impugned orders borne in Ex. P-10, stood dismissed. Amongst other grounds agitated by the plaintiffs/landowners before the Collector, Amb Sub Division, for imeaching the validity of Ex.P10, one, was of the order of the Naib Tehsildar recorded on 28.2.1987, borne in Ex.P-5, whereby the defendant/tenant was ordered to be recorded as a “gair maurusi” in respect of the suit khasra numbers, being, reversed by the Settlement Collector, under, the latter's orders comprised in Ex.P-3, also, he therein directed, that the issue with respect to the disputed status of the tenant, as a gair maurusi upon the suit land, be re-determined by the Naib Tehsildar concerned. However, the Collector, Amb Sub Division, in rendering EX.P-4, wherein he affirmed the impugned order, borne in Ex.P10, has therein neither alluded to the aforesaid ground raised by the plaintiffs/landowners in their appeal instituted before him nor has alluded to effects thereof. Contrarily, he has in a slip shod mechanical manner besides his inaptly irrevering the mandate borne in Ex.P-3, dismissed the appeal, whereby, he affirmed the orders occurring in Ex.P10. The slip shod mechanical manner of rendition of order borne in Ex.P-4 by the Appellate Authority, whereby, it affirmed the impugned order borne in Ex.P10, sequeled the plaintiffs/landowners, to assail it before the learned Divisional Commissioner, availment of remedy whereof is not demonstrated to achieve culmination. The effects of the aforesaid discussion, is, of the status of the defendants/tenant as a “gair maurusi” upon the suit land, yet remaining under a cloud also concomitantly his being not entitled to validate the orders pronounced in Ex.P-10 or in Ex.P-5. The effects of the aforesaid discussion, is, of the status of the defendants/tenant as a “gair maurusi” upon the suit land, yet remaining under a cloud also concomitantly his being not entitled to validate the orders pronounced in Ex.P-10 or in Ex.P-5. Since the tenant/defendant was enjoined to adduce clinching conclusive evidence in respect of his holding the status of a gair maurusi, upon the suit land under the plaintiffs/landowners also when his settled indefeasible rights in the aforesaid capacity upon the suit land, alone, would validate the pronouncements occurring in Ex.P10 and in Ex.P-5, whereas, his failing to adduce evidence in respects thereof besides his failing to prove that the Naib Tehsildar concerned on remand to him under Ex.P-3, of, his apposite application, whereunder correction of revenue entries were sought in respect of his hence being ordered to be reflected as a gair maurusi upon the suit khasra number, thereafter, hence, proceeding to record an affirmative decision thereon, whereupon, alone the cloud enveloping upon his status, as a gair maurusi upon suit khasra number, would hence, disappear. Effects whereof is with Ex.P10 standing rendered in the absence of participation of the landowners/plaintiffs, in the apt proceedings occurring prior thereto, thereupon, it is evidently infected with a vice of infraction of the principles of natural justice, also it stands rendered dehors any inquiry from all quarters concerned in respect of the settled indefeasible status of the defendant/tenant, as, a gair maurusi upon the suit kahsra numbers, thereupon, any validation vis-a-vis the impugned orders would beget the ill fate, of the defendant/tenant being vested with proprietary rights upon the suit khasra numbers, even, when the indispensable statutory condition precedent, of, his evidently holding an indefeasible status, of, a gair maurusie upon the suit khasra numbers, remains yet not clinched, nor stands finally put to rest. The befitting sequel therefrom is that the Revenue Officer concerned in making Ex.P10, has, made it in a most mechanical perfunctory manner also as is borne from a reading of Ex.P-3, of the defendant/tenant refusing to accept summons in respect of appeal bearing No.4/93, factum whereof remains un-controverted, besides his failing to adduce material that he remained unaware, from, 22.01.1993, whereat, an appeal against the orders borne in Ex.P-5 stood preferred before the Settlement Officer, upto 25.09.1993, when subsequent thereto Ex.P10 was recorded, about pendency(ies) thereof, effects whereof is with his omitting to adduce cogent evidence in display of his ignorance in respect of pendency of an appeal before the Settlement Collector concerned, against, orders borne in Ex.P-5, whereby, the status of a gair maurusi upon the suit khasra number stood conferred upon him, thereupon, the apt corollary thereof, is that despite his awareness qua the preferment of an appeal before the Settlement Collector concerned, against, the orders borne in Ex. P-5, his hence at the time contemporaneous to the recording of Ex.P10, camouflaging, from, the revenue officer concerned, the factum of pendency(ies) thereof. In aftermath, it has to be concluded that hence Ex.P10, is, a sequel of the defendant/tenant actively indulging in suggestio falsi and suppressio veri also it appears that hence the Revenue Officers concerned, in theirs proceeding to record impugned orders occurring in Ex. P-5 and Ex.P-10, hence colluding besides conniving with him. The drawing of the aforesaid inferences stains Ex.P10 with a vitiating vice of pervasive fraud and malafides. The attraction of the aforesaid vices vis-a-vis Ex.P-10, renders, it, to be jurisdictionally non-est, thereupon, the jurisdictional disempowerment of the Revenue Officers concerned, arising from the aforesaid inferences also constrains this Court to conclude of civil courts holding jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs' suit for setting aside the impugned orders. 12. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as well as by the learned trial Court are based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Consequently, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and against the defendant/appellant. 13. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Consequently, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and against the defendant/appellant. 13. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the instant appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgments and decrees are maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back.