JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration against the defendants,. The suit of the plaintiff stood dismissed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom by the plaintiffs before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal, whereupon, it concurred with the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court. In sequel thereto, the defendants/appellants herein are driven to institute the instant appeal here before. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction and in alternative for possession. The case of the plaintiff is that during consolidation Khasra No. 134, measuring 7-10 bighas was in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and father of proforma defendant. It is further contended that Khasra No. 134 was subsequently divided into two portion i.e. Khasra No. 381/1345 measuring 3 biswas and Khasra No. 382/134 measuring 7-7 bighas which were affected by Patwari in a rapat rojnamcha on 19th March, 1970 but there were recording of change in possession, but it was not reported to the Revenue Officer and no mutation was attested. Hence, change has been effected by the Patwari un-authorisedly in connivance with the defendant to give the benefit. It is further contended that Kapooru and Ganga has never been inducted as tenant over the suit land nor they have over paid any rent. Hence, mutation No. 583 was wrongly attested on 29.3.1976 stating that Kapooru and Ganga had acquired proprietary rights which mutation was illegal. In fact Pohlo and Balku never appeared before Revenue Officer. It is further contended that plaintiff and proforma defendants were owner of the suit land. Hence, defendants be restrained and cause of action arose in 1993. The plaintiff came to know about the revenue entries and in 1995 when Babu Ram for demarcation to take the possession of the land. 3. The defendants have contested the present suit by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections are taken that the suit was barred under Section 184 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, and this Court has no jurisdiction. On merits, it is averred that defendant No. 1 was tenant under Pohlo and Balku for a long time and was recorded as such in consolidation proceedings by putting him in possession. On merits, it is averred that defendant No. 1 was tenant under Pohlo and Balku for a long time and was recorded as such in consolidation proceedings by putting him in possession. It is further contended that mutation No. 583 was rightly attested and conferred proprietary rights of the defendants in his presence of Pohlo Ram and Balku. Without any objection and consent the defendant was owner in possession of the suit land. It is contended that the defendants were putting in possession of the suit land by consolidation proceedings which was not challenged by the plaintiff since 1976 and no reason has been given by the plaintiff for not challenging their revenue entries. 4. Replication has been filed, wherein contentions made in the written statement are denied and those made in the plaint are re-asserted. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 24.6.1997 (i) Whether the plaintiff and proforma defendant are owners in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP (ii) Whether the entry of ownership qua the suit land in favour of the defendants No. 1 to 4 is wrong, void and illegal as alleged, if so its effect? OPP (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP (iv) Whether the plaintiff and proforma defendant are entitled to the relief of possession in the alternative as alleged? OPP (v) Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD (vi) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as alleged? OPD (vii) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the suit as alleged? OPD (viii) Whether the defendant No. 1 was tenant over the suit land under Pohlo and Balku and has become owners in possession of the same under H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, as alleged? OPD (ix) Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the plaintiffs/appellants before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 6. Now the plaintiffs/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein they assail the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. 6. Now the plaintiffs/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein they assail the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, on 15.9.2006, admitted the appeal instituted by the appellants against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the findings of the two courts below that the respondents-defendants were earlier the tenant and have now become owner of the suit land and perverse? Substantial questions of Law 7. The learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives, of, deceased sole plaintiff Balku Ram, has mounted a challenge vis-à-vis the legality of orders of mutation, whereunder, proprietary rights qua suit khasra No. 381/134 khewat No. 108 min, Khatauni No. 1251 measuring 3 biswas, stood attested vis-à-vis the defendants/rights. His onslaught in respect of the order of mutation, borne, in Ext.P-5, suffering from a vice of invalidity, is centered upon, the aforesaid mutation being untenably recorded by the Assistant Collector II Grade, whereas the mandate of the apposite notification, recitals whereof stand extracted hereinafter: “In exercise of the powers vested in him under sub-section (1) of Section 93 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (Act No. 8 of 1974) and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to appoint all the Tehsildars in Himachal Pradesh, who have been conferred the powers of Assistant Collector, First Grade, vide this Government notification of even number and date, as the Land Reforms Officers for carrying out the purposes of Chapter X of the aforesaid Act, within their respective jurisdiction, with immediate effect.” contrarily vest jurisdiction, upon, an Assistant Collector-Grade-I, to make valid orders in respect of matters appertaining, TO, AND for carrying forward the purposes enshrined in Chapter IX of the H.P. Land Reforms Act, (in short “the Act”), (i) thereupon he canvasses, of the apposite order of mutation attested by an Assistant Collector, II grade hence begetting a stain of invalidity. Since the clout of the afore-extracted notification, whereunder, for purposes of carrying forward all the statutory goals besides ambitions, statutorily engrafted in Chapter X of the Act, the apposite statutory powers are conferred upon an Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, thereupon an allusion, (ii) to the statutory provisions engrafted in Chapter X of “the Act” is imperative. Significantly, also an allusion thereto is imperative given the provisions’ borne therein appertaining to, conferment of proprietary rights upon evidently proven “gair marausi”, upon apposite suit khasra No. 381/134, status whereof upon the aforesaid Khasra No., is staked by the defendants/respondents. Nowat, with the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, standing under the afore-extracted apposite notification, especially for carrying forward all the statutory provisions engrafted in Chapter X, provisions whereof appertain to conferment of proprietary rights, upon evidently proven “ gair marausi” upon the apposite suit Khasra numbers, hence conferred with the apt statutory jurisdiction. (b) Contrarily when in evident infraction thereof, the apposite order of mutation borne in Ext. P-5, stands attested, by an Assistant Collector, II Grade, thereupon the orders borne in Ext. P-5 are divested of their validity, theirs being attested by an incompetent Revenue Officer. 8. Dehors the above, the divestment of ownership of land owners vis-à-vis suit khasra No. 381/134 besides concomitant vestment of rights as owners thereof, upon, evidently proven “gair marusi” upon suit khasra No. 381/134, being an peremptory sequal or a statutory ensual, of, the mandate borne in Section 104 of the Act, 1972, specifically, of the one borne in Sub-section (3) of Section 104 thereto, provisions’ whereof stand extracted hereinafter, thereupon (i) unless there exists firm clinching evidence manifestly depictive of the defendants/resondents, not, prior to the appointed day or the notified day, holding any indefeasible rights as “gair morusi” upon suit khasra No. 381/134, (ii) thereupon any invaliditys upon scores aforesaid hence gripping, the order of mutation borne in Ext. P-5, would be rendered insignificant. P-5, would be rendered insignificant. The provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 104 are extracted hereinafter: “104(3) Right of tenant other than occupancy tenant to acquire interests of landowner: All rights, title and interest (including a contingent interest, if any) of a landowner other than a landowner entitled to resume land under sub-Section (1), shall be extinguished and all such rights, title and interest shall with effect from the date to be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette vest in the tenant free from all encumberances.” 9. Though, the plaintiff has appositely assailed the occurrence, in the Jamabandi(es), preceding, the appointed date or the date notified in the official gazette, of all displays therein reflective, of, the defendants/respondents holding, the status of “gair marusi” upon the suit khasra No. 381/134 , being ridden with a vice of arbitrariness, (i) arising from the factum of the apposite entries being recorded behind the back of the plaintiffs, (ii) also theirs’ remaining un-preceded by any validly recorded orders made by the revenue authorities concerned. However, the plaintiff did not adduce any cogent evidence in displacement thereof, despite, the defendants/respondents propagating in their written statements, of, valid orders being rendered by consolidation officers concerned, in respect of their names being incorporated as “gair marusi” vis-à-vis the suit land, in the apposite jamabandi(es), in pursuance whereof reflections occurred in the apposite jamabandi, appertaining to suit khasra No. 381/134 The defendants’ upon the issue appertaining, to, the validity of entries occurring in the revenue records, entries whereof hold reflections, of, theirs standing recorded, as “gair marusi” upon Khasra no. 381/134 had in proof thereof made, testifications, (iii) however, the testifications rendered by the defendants/respondents remained un-concerted, to be scuttled of their efficacy, by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, by the latter subjecting him to a rigorous cross-examination, (iv) nor he through, the aegis of the Court, concerted to ensure adduction, of direct best documentary evidence, appertaining thereto, also with its holding a vivid display, of all the entries occurring in the revenue records, marking, the factum of the defendants/respondents being recorded as “gair marusi” upon suit khasra No. 381/134, remaining unaccompanied also remaining un-preceded” by any valid orders being pronounced by the revenue officers concerned. Absence of adduction of the aforesaid best evidence, by the counsel for the plaintiff, for, his hence befittingly impeaching the validity of apposite entries, occurring in the revenue record, begets, an inference of the (v) testifications of the defendants, of, their occurrence in the revenue records being a sequel of theirs being preceded by valid orders made by the consolidation officer concerned, hence acquiring a halo of veracity. 10. In aftermath, with the entries borne in the Jamabandi(es), preceding the notified date or the appointed date under the Act, hence earmarking, the trite factum of the defendants/respondents being recorded as “gair marusi” upon suit khasra No. 381/134, thereupon (i) “dehors” any aforesaid invaliditys or vitiations, occurring in the apposite order of mutation borne in Ext. P-5, are yet to be perse construable to be investing statutory title, as, owners upon the defendants/landlords, vis-à-vis the suit land, (ii) concomitantly the plaintiffs are to be construed to be statutorily divested of their title, as owners upon the suit land. The recordings of orders of mutation, is thereupon merely a procedural mechanism nor any rendition thereof by a Revenue Officer concerned, especially in infraction of the mandate of the afore-extracted notification, would yet not undermine the statutory vigor of sub- Section (3) of Section 104 of “the Act”. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 11. 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. 12. In view of the above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. In sequel, the judgments and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.