JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The plaintiff/Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Resident Engineer (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff- Board”), preferred the present suit against original defendant No. 1, Shri Suraj Singh Pathania (since dead, now represented by his legal heirs, i.e., defendant No. 1(a) to 1(e)) and defendant No. 2/Union of India through Secretary (Relief and Rehabilitation) to the Government of H.P. (hereinafter after referred to as “the defendants”) for declaration and possession and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the property in question. 2. It is contended in the plaint by the plaintiff-Board that prior to independence the Mandi State was under the sovereign rule of Raja of Mandi and all properties within the Mandi State were under the ownership of Raja of Mandi. It is further contended that on 03.03.1925 an agreement was entered into for 99 years, at Mandi into between the Raja Darbar Mandi and State of India in council of the one part and the Lt. His Highness Raja Joginder Sen Bahadur Raja. The agreement was signed at Lahore by A.R. Astbury Asquire, Officiating Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Public Works Department, Building & Road Branch for and on behalf of Secretary of State for India in Council and by order of the Governor of Punjab. Through this agreement land comprised in Khasra No. 566, 567 and 568, kittas 3, measuring 2-2-3 bighas, situate in Mauza Shanan/393, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”) alongwith other lands was permanently transferred, through lease to Government free of charge, for establishment of Hydel Project and the consideration was fixed that free electricity will be supplied to the Darbar. One of the stipulation in the agreement was that Government shall bear all the expenses incurred by the Darbar for rehabilitation of inhabitants, who have to be removed from their lands or houses and also for the inhabitants, have suffer damage to their lands or properties, by reason of the scheme. One of the stipulation in the agreement was that Government shall bear all the expenses incurred by the Darbar for rehabilitation of inhabitants, who have to be removed from their lands or houses and also for the inhabitants, have suffer damage to their lands or properties, by reason of the scheme. In lieu of the grant of land, water and minerals, the Darbar was to be given electricity for free for the use and sale within the Mandi State and the maximum ceiling was fixed, according to the development of the project, half of one percent of the peak load capacity of the power station located in Mandi State and the minimum of 250 KWs, which was to be supplied if required during the first year of operation delivered at Mandi. 3. The plaintiff-Board has further averred that the project took seven years for its completion and it provided electricity to his Highness, Raja Joginder Sen Bahadur, till he remained alive and especially till 1947, when the partition took place. In 1947 the property in dispute was allotted to the State of Punjab. Subsequently, the Government of India declared the Shanan Power House, its headwork’s at barot and Haulgeway as “Prohibited Place” and the total area transferred to the Shanan Power House was distinctly described by area as also by boundaries. 4. In 1966, re-organization of State of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh took place. Section 48(1) of the Punjab Re- Organization Act, 1966, provides as under: “48. Land and Goods.- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this part, all land and all stores, articles and other goods belonging to the existing State of Punjab shall:- (a) If within the Sate, pass to the Successor State in whose territories they are situated; or (b) If outside that State, pass to the State of Punjab: Provided that where the Central Government is of the Opinion that any goods or class of goods should be distributed among successor States otherwise than according to the situation of the goods, the Central Government may issue such directions as it thinks fit for a just and equitable distribution of the goods and the goods shall pass to the successor states accordingly.” Thus, as per Section 48(1)(b) (supra) the Central Government allocated Shanan Power House, which is located within the territory of Himachal Pradesh, to the Punjab State. The State of Punjab constructed a dam at its own expenses, after acquiring the land, but the same was allotted by the Central Government, through Section 48(1)(b) to the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is further averred by the plaintiff-Board that through statutory enactments State of Punjab had been made complete owner of the Shanan Power House. 5. The plaintiff-Board further contended that on and w.e.f. 01.05.1967 the New Punjab State Electricity Board was created and former State Electricity Board was taken over by it. Resultantly, Hydel Power House, Joginder Nagar (Shanan Power House) was taken over by the New Punjab State Electricity Board, which was constituted by the Government of Punjab. Feeling aggrieved, the State of Himachal Pradesh represented before the Central Government qua grant of Shanan Power House to the Punjab State Electricity Board. On 24th February, 1972, an exhaustive discussion held in the Ministry of Irrigation and Power, which resulted in issuing a clarification dated 2nd March, 1972, whereby allotment of assets of Shanan Power House in favour of the plaintiff-Board was reaffirmed and the clarification specifically provided that “it has been decided that the allocation of Power Station conferred under this Ministry Order No. EL-II-3(17)/66 (2), dated 01.05.1967, will not be modified.” 6. The plaintiff-Board after the year 1925 remained in possession of the entire Shanan Power House and the land. It is averred that initially the plaintiff-Board remained in possession of the Shanan Power House and other land as a lessee, but after 01.05.1967, through the Act of the Parliament, which is known as Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, it has become complete owner thereof. Likewise, the plaintiff-Board has further contended that it has become owner of the suit land. Original defendant No. 1, late Shri Suraj Singh Pathania, was given land in dispute by the plaintiff-Board on lease w.e.f. 14.01.1966 to 14.01.1975, i.e., for ten years and for Rs.3/- per annum. The plaintiff-Board, out of the said land, had also given a portion thereof for construction of a shop to original defendant No. 1 on lease basis for the period w.e.f. 14.01.1966 to 14.01.1975. The predecessors-in-interest of defendant No. 1 continued to run that shop beyond the period agreed upon, thus on 09.04.1980 the plaintiff-Board was compelled to initiate proceedings against them under the Public Premises Act. The predecessors-in-interest of defendant No. 1 continued to run that shop beyond the period agreed upon, thus on 09.04.1980 the plaintiff-Board was compelled to initiate proceedings against them under the Public Premises Act. The application, so moved by the plaintiff-Board under Sections 5 and 7 of the H.P. Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Recovery) Act, was dismissed on the premise that civil questions were involved and the parties were directed to first get their rights adjudicated upon by the Civil Court. Later on, original defendant No. 1 during the years 1999-2000, by encroaching the land, converted the same into residence, thus he flouted the conditions of the agreement. As per the plaintiff-Board, original defendant No. 1 was repeatedly requested to vacate the premises in dispute, but he turned deaf ear, hence the present suit against him. 7. The plaintiff-Board further averred that defendant No. 2 illegally managed to get mutation of ownership effected in its favour in respect of Khasras No. 555 to 576, 581, 582, 586, 597, 598, 604, 605, 606, 609, 620, 620, 624, 625, 633, 647, 648, 649, 650 to 654, 663 to 668 and 678 to 685, situate in Mauja Shanan/393, Pargana Jeetpur, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., measuring 20-07-10 bighas, which includes the present suit land. Mutation No. 273, dated 29.03.2001 got attested without notice and hind the back of the plaintiff-Board, therefore the same is illegal, void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff-Board. 8. The plaintiff-Board issued Notice, date 11.10.2004, whereby defendant No. 1 was asked to hand over the possession of the premises in question and defendant No. 2 was asked to acknowledge and attorn to the ownership of the plaintiff-Board over the land in dispute alongwith other lands and further to get the Mutation No. 273 reviewed in favour of the plaintiff-Board. Notice, dated 11.10.2004, which was issued by the plaintiff-Board to the defendants yielded no positive results. 9. During the year 1999-2000, defendant No. 1 unauthorizedly raised the construction of a house over the land in dispute and thus the cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff-Board. Notice, dated 11.10.2004, which was issued by the plaintiff-Board to the defendants yielded no positive results. 9. During the year 1999-2000, defendant No. 1 unauthorizedly raised the construction of a house over the land in dispute and thus the cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff-Board. The cause of action continued in favour of the plaintiff-Board, as defendant No. 1 failed to pay the use and occupation charges and also failed to vacate the premises in dispute and defendant No. 2 illegally got the mutation No. 273, dated 29.03.2001, attested in its favour qua the ownership of the suit premises and the same has not yet been rectified by defendant No. 2 despite the legal notice to this effect having been served. It is further averred by the plaintiff-Board that on 11.10.2004 cause of action further accrued in favour of the plaintiff-Board, as on that date defendants were issued a legal notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. Lastly, the plaintiff-Board has prayed for the following substantive reliefs: “1. That the plaintiff-Board be declared absolute owner of Khasras No. 566, 567 and 568, measuring 2-2-3 bighas, situate in Mauza Shanan/393, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.; 2. That a decree for possession of the premises in dispute, situate over Khasras No. 566, 567 and 568, measuring 2-2-3 bighas, situate in Mauza Shanan/393, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., and as described in the map, which is filed alongwith the plaint, be passed; 3. That a decree for permanent injunction be passed restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the property in dispute; 4. That mutation No. 273, dated 29.03.2001, whereby defendant No. 2 has been shown as the owner of the property in dispute may kindly be declared null and void and not binding on the plaintiff-Board; 5. That defendant No.1 be directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- per month on account of use and occupation charge, w.e.f. 25.05.2002 onwards; 6. That the suit be decreed with costs.” 11. The suit is contested by defendant No. 1 on preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction, estoppel, valuation, barred by limitation and hit by Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code. That the suit be decreed with costs.” 11. The suit is contested by defendant No. 1 on preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, jurisdiction, estoppel, valuation, barred by limitation and hit by Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code. On merits, it is pleaded that defendant No. 1 is in possession of Khasras No. 566, 567 and 567, measuring 2-2-3 bighas, situated in Mohal Shanan, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., for the last more than sixty years. The replying defendant has further contended that in the lease dead filed by the plaintiff-Board before the learned Collector, Sub-Division, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., it has been held by the learned Collector that the same does not bear the signatures of the replying defendant, thus the same is not binding upon the replying defendant. It is further contended by the replying defendant that about sixty years back one Abdul Gafoor son of Shri Abdul Aziz and his predecessors had given land to the predecessors of the replying defendant. The replying defendant denied that the plaintiff-Board gave a piece of land to the replying defendant for running a shop and the same cannot be converted into residential house. It is further contended by the replying defendant that in the year 1975-76 predecessors-in-interest of the replying defendant constructed a house and later on a cow shed was also constructed there. It is admitted that legal notice, dated 09.10.2004, was received by the family members of the replying defendant. It is denied that during the year 1999-2000 the replying defendant unauthorizedly raised construction of a house over the disputed land. It is also denied that the replying defendant did not pay the use and occupation charges. The replying defendant has further contended on 03.10.1985 an application filed under Sections 5 and 7 of the H.P. Premises and Land (Eviction and Recovery Act) by the plaintiff against the predecessors-in-interest of the replying defendant was dismissed by the learned Collector. Limitation, by no stretch of imagination, will be extended only by issuing legal notice dated 09.10.2004. The replying defendant has denied rest of the contents of the plaint. Lastly, it is prayed that the suit be dismissed. 12. Limitation, by no stretch of imagination, will be extended only by issuing legal notice dated 09.10.2004. The replying defendant has denied rest of the contents of the plaint. Lastly, it is prayed that the suit be dismissed. 12. The suit is also contested by defendant No. 2 on the preliminary objections of jurisdiction, barred under Section 36 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, the matter is subjudice and matter stands compromised qua the suit land and rest of the land in dispute. On merits it is denied that the property in question was never owned by the Raja of Mandi, thus the question of signing agreement, dated 03.03.1925, by Raja Joginder Sain Bahadur does not arise at all, as he was not competent to sign the agreement qua the suit land. It is also specifically denied that the land in dispute was ever leased to the plaintiff-Board and Darbar was to be supplied electricity to the extent of 250 KWs in lieu of lease of the land. The replying defendant has denied the execution of agreement, dated 03.03.1925. The property is dispute is owned and possessed by the replying respondent and the transfer proceedings qua the disputed land are still pending before the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation, Himachal Pradesh. The replying defendant has further contended that the jurisdiction to challenge the mutation lies with the lowest rung of revenue authorities, thus the suit is barred by limitation. Lastly, it is prayed that the suit be dismissed. 13. In replications to the respective written statements filed by the defendants, the plaintiff-Board has refuted the stand on behalf of the defendants and instead reiterated its own case set upon in the plaint. 14. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land and entitled to declaration to this effect and also for possession of the suit land? OPP 2. Whether the mutation of the suit land in favour of defendant No. 2 is illegal, null and void and has no effect upon the right, title and interest of the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether this Court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit, as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Jogindernagar, which includes a part of the subject matter of this suit, against another person? OPP 3. Whether this Court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit, as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Jogindernagar, which includes a part of the subject matter of this suit, against another person? If so its effect? OPD-1 5. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD-1 6. Relief.” 15. The parties have led evidence. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-Board, learned counsel for defendant No. 1 and learned Additional Advocate General for defendant No. 2 and perused the record carefully. 16. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-Board has argued that the oral as well as documentary evidence clearly demonstrate that the plaintiff-Board is the owner of the suit land and legal representatives of original defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 has nothing to do with the suit property. He has argued that in wake of the documentary evidence, which is duly fortified by the ocular evidence, a decree for possession qua the suit land be passed in its favour and the defendants be restrained from changing the nature of the suit property. He has further argued that mutation No. 273, dated 29.03.2001, whereby defendant No. 2 is shown as owner of the disputed property be declared null and void. Conversely, the learned counsel for defendants No. 1(a) to 1(e) has argued that the disputed land was given to the predecessors-in-interest of original defendant No. 1 on lease, w.e.f. 14.01.1966 to 14.01.1975 for Rs.3/- per month. He has further argued that a portion of the suit land was given for construction of a shop on lease basis. He has argued that after 1966 the original defendant No. 1 and after him his legal representatives, i.e., defendants No. 1(a) to 1(e), are in possession of the suit land. Lastly, he has argued that the suit be dismissed with costs. The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for defendant No. 2 has argued that agreement, dated 03.03.1925, which was entered inter se Secretary of State for India in council and Lieutenant His Highness Raja Joginder Sen Bahadur, Raja of Mandi, qua the supply of electric power to Punjab, commonly known as Uhl River Hydre-Electric Project in Mandi State, is void ab initio, as Raja Jogindersain Bahadur was not competent to sign the agreement, being not owner of the property. He has further argued that the disputed land was not leased to the plaintiff-Board. He has argued that as the disputed property falls within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Himachal Pradesh, the present suit is barred under the provisions of Section 36 of the Displaced Persons (C & R) Act, 1954 and under Section 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, as the remedy to challenge the mutation lies with the revenue authorities. He has argued that the suit has no merits and the same be dismissed with costs. 17. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter my findings on the above issued are as under: Issue No. 1 Yes Issue No. 2 Yes. Issue No. 3 No Issue No. 4 No. Issue No. 5 No. Relief The suit of the plaintiff-Board is decreed. Reasons for findings: Issues No. 1 and 2: 18. Both these issues, being interconnected, require common appreciation of law and facts, thus they are taken up together for disposal and decision. 19. Issues No. 1 and 2 are key issues, upon which edifice of the whole controversy rests. In order to decide these issues this Courts needs to comprehensively deal with the oral as well as documentary evidence. 20. This Court deems it fit to first remove the dust over the documents and magnify their true import. First in the line of the documents is agreement, Ex. PW-8/A. Agreement, Ex. PW-8/A, is very relevant in order to understand the controversy at lis, so the same is extracted in toto hereunder: “This AGREEMENT made the 3rd day of March one thousand nine hundred and twenty five between the Secretary of State for India in Council (hereinafter together with his successor and assigns referred to as Government) of the one part and Lieutenant His Highness Raja Joginder Sen Bahadur Raja of Mandi (hereinafter called the Darbar of the other part. WHEREAS Government has under consideration a project for the supply of electric power to the Punjab Commonly known as the Uhl River Hydre-Electric Project in Mandi State, a description of which is contained in the report on the said project signed by Lieutenant-Colonel D.C. Satya, R.E. on the tenth day of January one thousand nine hundred and twentyfour and (WHEREAS if and when such scheme is put into execution it will be necessary to establish a Hand works, Power House and connected works within the territory of Mandi State and WHEREAS it is intended that the purposes for and the rates of which power shall be sold, displayed of or applied shall from time to time be decided by the management of the project appointed by the management of the project appointed by Government. NOW for the mutual benefit of Government and of the Darbar, IT IS AGREED that if and so soon as Government shall finally decide to put into execution the said Hydro-Electric Project, either as at present project or with such change or modifications as may hereafter be sanctioned by Government, put not in any other event, the following provisions shall come into force and be carried into effect that is to say: 1. In consideration of the benefit hereinafter described the Darbar shall give on lease to Government free of charge all land or permanent and temporary acceptation which may be required for the purpose of the said project, all the Water of the Uhl River above the site of the proposed map known in the attached map and all earth, lime or other building stone required for the works hereinafter referred to Government will bear the cost of all expenses incurred by the Darbar for the re-establishment in suitable circumstances of any inhabitants who have to be removed from any land or houses for the purpose of the scheme and for compensating any inhabitant not so removed in respect of damage to long or property sustained by reason of the scheme. Further in the case of land, temporarily occupied, Government will bear the cost of resting such land to its original condition, or alternatively of paying the capitalized value of composition and in the case of water at present used for irrigation or for driving flour mills Government will bear the cost of compensation for loss of such water when it occurs, at rates to be agreed upon. 2. Government shall have the free use of water in one or more of the tributaries of the Rana River for purposes of temporary power development during the period of construction of the works herein mentioned and will pay full compensation for any loss caused by the diversion for temporary power development of any water at present used for irrigation or driving flour mills. 3. The Darbar will grant a lease of ninety-nine years of all the land and water rights other than temporary required for the said project. The Darbar will retain full jurisdiction and sovereign rights over such land and after the expiration of ninety-nine years the lease will be renewable by Government on such terms as may be agreed upon between the parties and any case in which mutual agreement is impossible shall be referred to arbitration as hereinafter provided. 4. Excluding the tunnel, flumes and pipe lines and haulage way which shall so far as possible not traverse cultivable land Government will not require for permanent occupation more than forty acres of culturable land at the Head works and not more than thirty acres at the power station near Shanan for the first stage of the Project and not more than a further seventy-five acres of cultivable land for the second stage of the project. 5. Should a tramway be built in connection with the project, as shown in the said report or otherwise, the ordinary rules regarding the payment of compensation laid down by Government of India in the case of India states will govern the case or far as cultivated and culturable land in concerned. As regards unculturable land the Dabar agrees to the principle that no rent should be paid. 6. Should it eventually be decided to increase the water supply by the construction of a dam near the head works, cultivated land amounting to not more than sixty-five acres will by flooding be thrown out of cultivation. As regards unculturable land the Dabar agrees to the principle that no rent should be paid. 6. Should it eventually be decided to increase the water supply by the construction of a dam near the head works, cultivated land amounting to not more than sixty-five acres will by flooding be thrown out of cultivation. As the flooded area will comprise most of the cultivated land the flooded area will comprise most of the cultivated land attached to the villages of Dedahagna, Brot, Tuji, Kaduhan and Chang, it will be necessary to remove the inhabitants of these villages and providing them with land of similar area and quality elsewhere. The cost of these operations which will be conducted by the Darbar will be dubitable entirely to Government. The Darbar will give its consent to pay measures necessary for such increase of water supply upon receiving notice from Government of its intention. 7. In return for the free grant of land, water and minerals as got forth above, the Darbar will be granted power for use or sale within the Mandi State free of charge, subject to a maximum limit of half of one percent of the peak load capacity of the power station, situated in the Mandi State, according to the development of the project and a minimum of two hundred and fifty kilowatts which will be supplied if required during the first year of operation delivered at Mandi town at a pressure of four hundred and forty volts, alternating current. Should the Darbar at any time require power in excess of the above free allowance of half of one percent or two hundred and fifty kilowatts whichever is the greater, Government agree to supply the extra power required subject to a maximum limit of one thousand kilowatts exclusive of free supply at cost price as hereafter defined cost price shall be assumed to be ninety percent of the tariff rates for ordinary built supply for the time being in force in the Punjab. Should either party consider that ninety percent of the tariff rates is either less than or in excess of cost price that party may require a special audit to determine the percentage of such tariff rates which represents actual cost price. Should either party consider that ninety percent of the tariff rates is either less than or in excess of cost price that party may require a special audit to determine the percentage of such tariff rates which represents actual cost price. The party requiring the audit shall bear the cost thereof in any event but the percentage determined by the audit shall came into force from the date when the audit was demanded. If and as soon as the maximum demand on the power station in Mandi State (to be ascertained in the same manner as hereinafter specified for the purpose of royalty) has exceeded thirty nine thousand kilowatts the Darbar shall be entitled to an additional free supply of two hundred and fifty kilowatts making a total minimum free supply of five hundred kilowatts. In addition to the above deserted free power and power at cost price the Darbar will be entitled to royalty of as money rupees per kilowatts of maximum demand generated at the power station in Mandi State at any one time for a continuous period of not less than twenty minutes within each calendar year, as measured by an approved maximum demand readings to be recorded monthly. The rate in rupees per kilowatts to be paid to the Darbar will be on a sliding scale, increasing with the total amount of power generated, in accordance with the following scale: Scale of Royalty When the maximum power generated at the Nothing power station at one time for not less than twenty minutes in any one calendar year does not exceed thirty five thousand, nine hundred and ninetynine kilowatts. When the maximum power generated at the one rupee per kilowatt power station, as defined above, exceeds thirty-five thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine kilowatts. When it exceeds thirty-nine thousand kilowatt Three rupees per kilowatts When it exceeds forty-two thousand kilowatts Three rupees per kilowatts. When it exceeds forty-five thousand kilowatts Three rupees eight Ana as per K.W. In addition to free power and to royalty at the rates described, above, the Darbar will be entitled to the use for irrigation are power purposes free of charge, all of the tail race water discharged into the Rana River, below the power Stations, provided that the water is not required for development of the forth stage of the Project which contemplates diverting the tail water into the Beas. The Government will decide within twenty year of the completion of first stage whether the forth stage will be required. 9. The Superintending Engineer, Incharge of works under construction in the state or other officer appointed by the Punjab Government and agreed to by the Darbar shall be invested by the Darbar with the power of the third class Magistrate, under the authority of the Mandi state District Magistrate during the construction of the works. He shall also be empowered to decide civil suits the value of which does not excess rupees one thousand. All civil cases in which any person employed on the works is a party and all criminals cases in which such person is a complainant are accused persons which can legally be instituted in the Court of the Superintending Engineer, are officer appointed as above mentioned shall be instituted in that court and in no other. Such officer, will be given a Muharrir by the Darbar, but the Muharrier’s pay and all expenses connected with the appointment of such a Magistrate will be borne by the Government, the Darbar only supplying the usual standard forms. 10. The Darbar will allot any area for the supply of fuel and timber as near the site of the works for which the same may be required as shall be conveniently possible. Government agrees to do all things possible to prevent any feelings are lappings without the authority of the state forest Department. Payment for wood will be made at the ordinary State Forest Department rates. 10. As the small amount of Labour available in the State is ordinarily required for the salt Quarries, Government will have to import Labour for their works. In case of emergencies the Darbar will, however, do their best to supply and copies required at current local rates. Government agree as far as possible not to employ un-skilled Sikhs and Pathans. 11. Government agree to pay due attention to any complaint on the part of the Darbar in regard to the employment or removal of undesirable characters. Should there be any disagreement between the parties on this project the matter shall be referred to the Agent to the Governor-General, Punjab States, whose decision will be final. 12. 11. Government agree to pay due attention to any complaint on the part of the Darbar in regard to the employment or removal of undesirable characters. Should there be any disagreement between the parties on this project the matter shall be referred to the Agent to the Governor-General, Punjab States, whose decision will be final. 12. The Darbar undertake to close all liquor shops within a radius of three miles of the works during the construction of the works and Government undertake to make good to Darbar any loss that may be occasioned by the closure of such shops. Should Government open liquor shops at the works, the amount realized by the sale such liquor contracts will be payable to the Darbar. 13. The Darbar will charge as duty of any kind on any articles or materials required for the purpose of the said project and the works connected therewith or for the bonafide use of employees at the works. 14. In the event of internal upheaval of a nature to jurisprudence the safety of the Hydro Electric works and operating Staff- if in the opinion of the Resident Engineer Incharge of the Power Stations, the safety of the works and staff are jeopardized, the Punjab Government, with the concurrence of the agent of the Governor-General, Punjab Stages, shall be at liberty to take such steps including the importation either of police or troops, as it may consider necessary for the safe-guarding of the said works and staff. 15. Government shall be at liberty at any time to hand over the working of the Hydro-Electric scheme to any body-Statutory or otherwise brought into existence for the purpose-provided that any such arrangements shall not effect the liability of Government or its responsibility to or its relations with the Darbar under this agreement. In such event Government will be responsible for ensuring that the terms of this agreement are fully complied with by the Body responsible for the working of the scheme. 16. In the event of any dispute between the Government and the Darbar with regard to the interpretation of this agreement or in regard to points left open for mutual agreement between the parties or which may arise in another way in connection with the project, the matter shall be referred to the Agent to the Governor-General Punjab. 16. In the event of any dispute between the Government and the Darbar with regard to the interpretation of this agreement or in regard to points left open for mutual agreement between the parties or which may arise in another way in connection with the project, the matter shall be referred to the Agent to the Governor-General Punjab. States, whose decision will be final provided that the Agent to the Governor-General Punjab, States, whose decision will be final provided that the Agent to the Governor-General-Punjab States, may with the consent of the parties refer any such matter for the decision of one or more arbitrators. … … … … … … … … Signed at Lahore by Lieutenant His Highness Raja Joginder Sen Bahadur Raja of Mandi, and in the presence of 1._______________ 2.____________ Signed at Lahore by A.R. Astbury, Esquire, Officiating Secretary to Government Punjab, Public Works Department, Buildings and Roads Branch, for and on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council and by order of the Governor of the Punjab.” After perused agreement, dated 03.03.1925, Ex. PW-8/A, it can be held that the same was, in fact, entered into between the Secretary of State for India in Council and Lieutenant High Highness Raja Joginder Sen Bahadur Raja of Mandi. It further goes to show that the then State of Punjab, within which the area of Mandi, where now the Jogindernagar Power House is situate, was given on lease all the water of Uhl river, above the site of the proposed map (Jogindernagar Power Station), all earth (land), lime or other building stone required for the construction works by Lieutenant His Highness Raja Joginder Sen Bahadur, Raja of Mandi. Noticeably, agreement, Ex. PW-8/A, was entered into on 03.03.1925 and during that time the area of Mandi was under the reign of the then State of Punjab. The execution of agreement, Ex. PW-8/A, inter se the then Secretary of State for India in Council and Lieutenant His Highness Raja Joginder Sen Bahadur, the then Raja of Mandi, is not shrouded in suspicious circumstances and even after delving on it exhaustively and the ancillary pervading situation at that time, nothing fishy could be found in either execution of Ex. PW-8/A or its covenants. Thus, the execution of agreement, Ex. PW-8/A or its covenants. Thus, the execution of agreement, Ex. PW-8/A, stands proved on record, especially in the wake of the fact that there is nothing on record, which could make this Court to lean into the view that agreement, Ex.PW-8/A, is a fake document. The execution of agreement, Ex. PW-8/A, and its covenants is further proved by the follow up action taken by the then State of Punjab when the Jogindernagar Hydro Power House was constructed by it. 21. Admittedly, after the independence of the country, the Ministry of Home Affairs, vide Notification dated 8th March, 1956, in exercise of powers conferred upon it under sub Clause (d), clause (8) of Section 2 of the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923, declared the Shanan Power House, its headwork’s at Barot and Haulgeway as “Prohibited place”. The said notification in this regard is Ex. PW-7/A and through the same total area was transferred to the Shanan Power House and areas were distinctly described. 22. Later on, in the year 1966 Punjab Re-Organization Act, 1966 was enacted. Section 48 of the Act provided as under: “48. Land and Goods.- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this part, all land and all stores, articles and other goods belonging to the existing State of Punjab shall:- (c) If within the State, pass to the Successor State in whose territories they are situated; or (d) If outside that State, pass to the State of Punjab: Provided that where the Central Government is of the Opinion that any goods or class of goods should be distributed among successor States otherwise than according to the situation of the goods, the Central Government may issue such directions as it thinks fit for a just and equitable distribution of the goods and the goods shall pass to the successor states accordingly.” Thus, according to the mandate of Section 48 of the Act (supra) the Central Government was instilled with the power to take a decision, as it thinks fit for a just and equitable distribution of the goods and the goods shall pass to the successor States accordingly. As a sequel, the Central Government on 1st May, 1967, passed the following order (Ex. As a sequel, the Central Government on 1st May, 1967, passed the following order (Ex. PW-1/A) and Jogindernagar Hydro Power House, located in the territory of Himachal Pradesh was allowed to remained within the reign of composite Punjab State Electricity Board: “TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA PART II, SECTION 3(ii) Government of India Ministry of Irrigation and Power No. Er.-II-(17)/66-(II) New Delhi, the Ist May, 1967 Vaisakha 11, 1889 (Saka) ORDER In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 67 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (31 of 1966), the Central Government hereby directs that the Punjab State Electricity Board constituted under the Notification of the Government of Punjab in the Irrigation and Power Department No. 5729-I&EL(7)189/67/2563 dated the 29th April, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the new Punjab State Electricity Board) shall, with effect from the 1st May, 1967, take over from the State Electricity Board constituted for the former State of Punjab and referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 67 of the said Act, (hereinafter referred to as the composite Punjab State Electricity Board) such of its assets, rights and liabilities as are specified in the schedule below and the apportionment of such assets, rights and liabilities shall be subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of that section. The Schedule Assets and liabilities to be taken over by the new Punjab State Electricity Board constituted by the Government of Punjab Fixed Assets. (1) POWER HOUSE Name of Power House. Installed capacity in MW A. Hydro Power House 1. Jogindernagar 4x12 … … … … … … … …” Consequently, the State of Himachal Pradesh laid its claim over Shanan Power House. However, again the Central Government did not deem it proper, thus Shanan Power House remained under the reign of State of Punjab. The relevant document, in this regard is Ex. PW-1/B, which is extracted hereunder in extenso: “In exercise of the power conferred by Section 4. Claim for transfer of Jogindernagar Power House to Himachal Pradesh. (a) The position of Jogindernagar Power Plant as given in the claim is not correct. The relevant document, in this regard is Ex. PW-1/B, which is extracted hereunder in extenso: “In exercise of the power conferred by Section 4. Claim for transfer of Jogindernagar Power House to Himachal Pradesh. (a) The position of Jogindernagar Power Plant as given in the claim is not correct. The correct position is as under: (i) Principal Agreement signed between Mandi Darbar and Punjab Government in 1925, for the exploitation of resources of Uhl River for generation of power and free use of land at Brot and Shanan for a period of 99 years. (ii) Ist supplementary agreement signed between Mandi Darbar and Punjab Government in 1935, for the extension of H.T. mains from Mandi Substation to Palanoo at the expense of Darbar. (iii) Second Supplementary agreement signed between the Punjab State Electricity board and Government of H.P. 1965, permitting the free and concessional supply outside the areas of Mandi State for the development of H.P. and ratifying the Principal and First Supplementary agreement, referred to above. (b) Government of India, Ministry of I & P vide Notification No. EL-II-3(17)/66-II dated 1.5.67, under Clause 4(a) of Section 67 of Punjab Re-Organization Act allocated Jogindernagar Power Plant to new Punjab. This power plant, not being situated in the areas transferred to Himachal Pradesh, as a result of Reogranization, cannot be claimed by Himachal Pradesh, as this property was acquired by means of a bilateral agreement and this claim does not arise out of reorganization of Erstwhile State of Punjab Under Section 65 of the Re-Organization Act. (c) This property rightly should remain with Punjab under Section 48(1)(b) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, which states that any property belonging to the Erstwhile Punjab State shall pass to the Punjab Sate, unless the Central Government directs otherwise, on the basis of just and equitable distribution of goods. (d) The same position arises in the cases of Bassi Project (3 x 15 MW) which according to Section 48(1)(b) should have passed on to Punjab State, but the Government of India vide Ministry of I&P Notification No. EL-II-3(17)/66-IV dated 2.5.1967, allocated this power plant to Himachal Pradesh. Accordingly Himachal Pradesh has absolutely no claim on Jogindernagar Power Plant.” 23. After due deliberations, the Government of India, vide its letter dated 22nd March, 1972, which is Ex. PW-10/A, clearly rejected the claim of defendant No. 2/State of Himachal Pradesh over the Jogindernagar Power House. Ex. Accordingly Himachal Pradesh has absolutely no claim on Jogindernagar Power Plant.” 23. After due deliberations, the Government of India, vide its letter dated 22nd March, 1972, which is Ex. PW-10/A, clearly rejected the claim of defendant No. 2/State of Himachal Pradesh over the Jogindernagar Power House. Ex. PW-10/A is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “No. EL. JI.77 (45)/71 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF IRRIGATION AND POWER NEW DELHI, the 22 March, 1972 To The Secretary in the Government of Himachal Pradesh Deptt. Of Multipurpose Project and Power. Subject : Apportionment of assets, right and liabilities of the composite Punjab State Electricity Board amongst its successor Status/Units (Power Houses). Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. C-144/CA-MPP (SECTT) dated 22.10.1969 on the above subjects and to state that the allocation of Shanan Power Station (Jogindernagar Power Station) to Himachal Pradesh has been carefully examined. It has been decided that the allocation of Power Station conveyed under this Ministry’s order No. EL –II.3(17)/66 (II), dated 01.05.1967 will not be modified. The final order Section 67(3) of the Punjab reorganization Act will be issued after the examination of other points under correspondence with the concerned state. The decision in respect of power stations is being conveyed in pursuance of the discussions held in the ministry on the 24th February, 1972, vide this Ministry’s OM No. EL. I 12(2)/68, dated 7th March, 1972 with which a copy of the summary record of the discussion was sent. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Deputy Director (Power)” The above extracted order (Ex. PW-1/A) clearly demonstrates that Jogindernagar Power House (Popularly known as Shanan Power House), by issuing order, Ex. PW-1/A, by the Central Government, was allowed to remain under the reign of State of Punjab even after re-organization of the States of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Union Territory of Chandigarh. There is ample documentary evidence to unflinchingly establish that as far as the distribution of the assets, after the reorganization of State of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, are concerned, the same got finally settled by the Central Government that Jogindernagar Power Station shall remain with State of Punjab. The Central Government had decided not to modify order No. EL–11.3 (17)/66(II), dated 01.05.1967, whereby under the Reorganization Act earlier Punjab State Electricity Board was merged into newly created Composite Punjab State Electricity Board. The Central Government had decided not to modify order No. EL–11.3 (17)/66(II), dated 01.05.1967, whereby under the Reorganization Act earlier Punjab State Electricity Board was merged into newly created Composite Punjab State Electricity Board. Thus, in nittygritty Jogindernagar Power Station was under the reign of erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board and thereafter under Composite Punjab State Electricity Board. The claim of Himachal Government over the said Power Station was rejected by the Central Government and it remained under the control of Punjab Government. Thus, the above chronicle of Jogindernagar Power House clearly proves that it was and is owned and possessed by the State of Punjab and its instrumentalities, thus defendant No. 2/State of Himachal Pradesh has no valid and justifiable claim over the same. 24. Now, the hands of clock turn towards the ocular evidence adduced by the parties. First in the list of the evidence is the statement of PW-1, Shri V. Ramakrishnan, the then Under Secretary, Ministry of Power, Government of India, Delhi, brought the records. Ex. PW-1/A is copy of notification dated 1st May, 1967, whereby New Punjab State Electricity Board was created. The relevant contents of the notification have already been quoted in the earlier part of this judgment. PW-1 has also produced letter, dated 02.05.1967, which is Ex. PW-1/B. 25. PW-10, Shri Sohan Lal Mehta, Senior Assistant, Multipurpose Projects and Power, H.P. Secretariat, Shimla, produced copy of letter dated 22.03.2917, Ex. PW-10/A. However, he, in his cross-examination, deposed that Ex. PW-10/A was neither written in his presence, nor he dealt with the same. Relevant extract of Ex. PW-10/A, has already been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment. 26. The bone of contention in the present case is not qua the ownership over the Jogindernagar Power Station, here the plaintiff-Board maintained a suit against the original defendant, Shri Suraj Singh Pathania (who has died), now through his legal representatives, for declaration and possession of the property, which is comprised in Khasras No. 566, 567 and 568, kitas 3, measuring 2-2-3 bighas situated in Mauza Shanan/393 Patwar Circle, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. The plaintiff- Board has also sought a relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the original defendant from changing the nature of the suit property. 27. 27. The plaintiff-Board has anchored its case on grounds, which have been tersely enumerated in the initial part of this judgment, thus they need not to be reiterated again. Now, this Court, after exhaustively scrutinizing the documentary evidence deems it apt to examine the rest of the ocular evidence adduced by the parties. 28. The depositions of PW-1 and PW-10, Shri V. Ramakrishnan and Shri Sohan Lal Mehta, respectively, have already been discussed hereinabove. PW-2, Shri Sanjay Kumar, Patwari, brought on record jamabandies, which are Ex. PW-2/A to Ex. PW-2/H and Ex. PW-2/J. PW-3, Shri Rameshwar Sharma, Joint Secretary (Revenue) Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, brought on record letter dated 29.08.1986, which is qua spot inspection in respect of evacuee land under the possession of H.P. and Punjab Electricity Board Shanan Power House, Jogindernagar. and the copy of the same is Ex. PW-3/A. He has stated that Ruler of erstwhile princely State of Mandi was not the owner of the land, so the land could not leased out to the plaintiff-Board. PW-4, Shri Nand Kishore, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Shanan Power House, Jogindernagar, brought on record Ex. PW-4/A to Exd. PW-4/H and Ex. PW-4/J, which are copies of entries in the register qua maintenance of the buildings of the plaintiff situated in the area of Shanan Power House, on and w.e.f. 1926. 29. PW-5, Shri S.K. Sharma, Resident Engineer, Shanan Power House, PSEB, Jogindernagar, stated that in the year 1925, through an agreement, the site of Shanan Power House was transferred to the Punjab Government by the ruler of erstwhile State of Mandi, copy of the said agreement is mark ‘X’. He has further stated that after entering into agreement the setting work of Shanan Power House was commenced. The project was completed in the year 1932 and the generation of power was started. PW-6, Shri Karan A. Singh, Secretary, PWD (B&R) Government of Punjab could not bring the summoned records, as, as per him the records could not be traced. He has stated that the original agreement seems to have been executed by the Electricity Wing of the PWD Branch somewhere in 1925. He has further stated that the Electricity and Irrigation Branch of the Punjab Government was transferred to the Irrigation and Power Department somewhere around in early fifties. He has stated that the original agreement seems to have been executed by the Electricity Wing of the PWD Branch somewhere in 1925. He has further stated that the Electricity and Irrigation Branch of the Punjab Government was transferred to the Irrigation and Power Department somewhere around in early fifties. Subsequently, in 1959, Punjab State Electricity Board was constituted and Electricity Branch, alongwith records, was transferred to the State Electricity Board. PW-7, Shri Virender Kumar, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, brought the Gazette of India (ordinary) and stated that Ex. Pw-7/A is the true copy of SRO No. 625 punished at pages No. 342 and 343 of the Gazette. PW-8, Shri Jag Mohan Jareda, Archivist, National Archie of India, Janpat, New Delhi, brought the certified copy of the agreement, dated 03.03.1925, alongwith notings and he testified the same. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that only agreement was available on the record. He has further deposed that document is in possession of the Directorate, National Archives of India Library, New Delhi. As per this witness, the original agreement does not bear the signature of Raja Laxman Sen. Photostat copy of agreement was placed on record, which is Ex. PW-8/B. PW-9, Shri Husan Lal, Secretary PSEB at Patiala, stated that he has seen the original agreement, dated 3rd Marh, 1925, copy of which is Ex. PW-8/A. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that Khasras No. 566, 567 and 568 do not find mention in the agreement. 30. PW-11, Shri S.K. Sharma, Superintending Engineer, Shanan Power House, Punjab State Electricity Board, Jogindernagar, H.P., has signed and verified the plaint. As per this witness, a piece of land was given to the predecessors-in-interest of defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff for running a shop on lease for ten years at the rate of Rs.3/- per year. Defendant No. 1 did not pay lease amount and was thus requested to vacate the land. As per this witness, proceedings under the Public Premises Act were also initiated against defendant No. 1 and the matter was decided by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jogindernagar in 1985, copy of order dated 03.10.1985, is mark ‘X’. He has further stated that notice, copy whereof is Ex. PW-11/A, was also issued to defendant No. 1 and postal receipts of notice are Ex. PW-11/B and Ex. PW-11/C and acknowledgements are Ex. Pw-11/D and Ex. He has further stated that notice, copy whereof is Ex. PW-11/A, was also issued to defendant No. 1 and postal receipts of notice are Ex. PW-11/B and Ex. PW-11/C and acknowledgements are Ex. Pw-11/D and Ex. PW-11/E. Defendant No. 1 did not reply to the notice, so notice qua the property was issued under the Evacuee Property Act. He has stated that entry in the revenue record and mutation No. 273 were not attested in presence of plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 has no concern with the suit property. This witness, in his cross-examination, has stated that order dated 03.10.1985 was not appealed against. He denied that father of defendant No. 1 was in possession of the land in dispute for the last more than sixty years. He feigned his ignorance about the lease deed signed by the plaintiff by predecessors-in-interest of defendant No.1. He denied the ownership of defendant No. 2 over the suit property. 31. Now, the ocular evidence, as adduced by the defendants is to be looked into. DW-1, Shri Yog Raj, Record Keeper, office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P., produced on record Ex. DW-1/A, which is order dated 03.10.1985 passed by Collector, Sub Division Jogindernagar District Mandi, H.P. He has further stated that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that order dated 03.10.1985 was set-aside. DW-2, Shri Sobhlu Ram, deposed that he is acquainted with the family of defendant No. 1. He has further stated that according to his knowledge defendant No. 1 has no other place of residence. Over the suit land defendant No. 1 has constructed his pucca house and other land is used for agricultural purposes. As per this witness, pucca house was built about 35 to 45 years back and no new construction had been carried out by defendant No. 1. Father of defendant No. 1 used to run sweets shop from the suit land. He, in his cross-examination, feigned his ignorance that the land measuring 6 feet by 8 feet was given to one Shri Roop Singh for running a tea stall on a rent of Rs.3/- per month for a period of ten years and about 10-15 years back said Shri Roop Singh has expired. He has admitted that near to the suit property there is project area and suit property situate within the gated premises of the plaintiff-Board. He has admitted that near to the suit property there is project area and suit property situate within the gated premises of the plaintiff-Board. As per this witness, defendant No. 1 is in possession of approximately one and half bigha of the land. 32. DW-3, Shri Lekh Raj, Ward Member of Nagar Panchayat, Jogindernagar, stated that family of defendant No. 1 was born and brought up at the said place and there exists a pucca house of defendant No. 1 on the site alongwith one cow shed. He has further stated that there is agricultural land as well, which adjoins the house. The land is about 1½ to 2 bighas. Names of family members of defendant No. 1 are recorded in the Nagar Panchayat and according to him no action has ever been taken by the Panchayat against defendant No. 1 for carrying out any unauthorized construction. This witness, in his crossexamination, has stated that the suit premises is outside the gated premises of the plaintiff. The suit property falls within the municipal area. According to this witness, defendant No. 1 or his ancestors used to run a tea shop and there exists a cow shed on the spot since his childhood. DW-4, Shri Husan Kumar, Civil Ahalmad, in the Court of learned CivilJudge (Senior Division)-cum-JMIC, Jogindernagar, produced the records qua plaint in Civil Suit No. 192 of 2005 filed in the said Court, which is DW-4/A. As per this witness, the suit was decided on 01.04.2011 and the appeal against the same is pending disposal in the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi. 33. DW-5, Shri Suraj Singh Pathania (defendant No. 1), stated that his residential house is consisting of three rooms, bath room and latrine etc, which situate on the suit land and besides this there is also an orchard having fruit bearing trees. As per this witness, in the year 1979-80 Resident Engineer, Shanan Power House, Jogindernagar, maintained a suit against him in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Collector at Jogindernagar, and the same was dismissed in the year 1985. He has stated that no lease agreement was entered in by him or by his father/grand father with the Punjab State Electricity Board. He has stated that no lease agreement was entered in by him or by his father/grand father with the Punjab State Electricity Board. The suit land is in his possession and the plaintiff-Board maintained a suit qua the land involved in the present suit against one Shri Sansar Chand in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Jogindernagar, qua which the appeal is pending in District Court Mandi. He has further stated that the suit property is situate outside the periphery of the establishment of Punjab State Electricity Board at Shanan Power House, Jogindernagar. Neither he, nor his predecessors were ever evicted from the suit property by orders of any authority or Court. This witness, in his cross-examination, has stated that the house was constructed by his grand father earlier to 1946-47. No site plan was got approved at the time of construction of the house. He has denied that Punjab State electricity Board had allotted a piece of land measuring 8 x 6 feet to him on payment of monthly rent of Rs.3/- for a period of ten years for funning a tea stall on compassionate grounds. He voluntarily stated that his father used to run a tea stall in the suit land, but no lease deed was entered into between him and Punjab State Electricity Board. Tea stall existed over the suit land since 1946-47 and he is in possession of about two bighas of land. As per this witness, the plaintiff-Board is not owner of the suit land and the suit land is in their possession for the last more than 67 years. He has denied that he encroached upon the suit land. He admitted that the land where Shanan Project, Jogindernagar, has been constructed earlier belonged to Raja of Mandi, who donated the same for construction of the project. He admitted that the suit land, comprised of Khasras No. 566, 567 and 568, was earlier owned by one Shri Abdul Gafur and he had given this land to his grand father. He has further stated that Abdul Gafur left India during the partition of the country in the year 1947 and he left behind the suit land and the suit land came in ownership of defendant No. 2 as evacuee property. However, this witness could not produce any document qua the fact that the suit land was ever given by Shri Abdul Gafur to his grant father. However, this witness could not produce any document qua the fact that the suit land was ever given by Shri Abdul Gafur to his grant father. As per this witness, on 19.01.1977 due to fire the documents were burnt in the fire. He could not also produce khasra gardawari or jamabandi depicting his possession over the entire suit land. He voluntarily stated that his possession was upheld by the Sub Divisional Collector. 34. DW-6, Shri Om Prakash, Patwari, testified Ex. DW-6/A to Ex. DW-6/C, copies of jamabandies for the years 1994-95, 1999-2000 and 2004-05, respectively and copies of mutations No. 248 and 273, Ex. DW-6/D and Ex. DW-6/E, respectively. As per this witness, in the documents, which he testified, there is no reference of Shri Suraj Singh Pathania or his predecessors. This witness, in his cross-examination, has stated that prior to attestation of mutations, the property was in the name of one Abdul Gafur and he is not aware whether said Abdul Gafur gifted the property to the grandfather of Shri Suraj singh Pathania or not. As per this witness, khasras No. 567 and 568 are recorded in the name of custodian-department. PW-7, Shri Balwant Kumar, Record Keeper, Revenue Record, D.C. Office, Mandi, has only brought copies of jamabandies for the years 1945-46 and 1950-51, Ex. DW-7/A and Ex. DW-7/B, respectively, on record. 35. The plaintiff-Board has also examined four witnesses in rebuttal. PW-1/R, Shri Manjit Singh, Civil Ahlmad, in the office of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P., brought copy of judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 192 of 2005, which are Ex. PW-1/R-A and Ex. PW-1/R-B. He has also brought copy of judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 193 of 2005, which are Ex. PW-1/R-C and Ex. PW-1/R-D. Copy of judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 194 of 2005 are Ex. PW-1/R-E and Ex. PW-1/R-F. PW-2/R, Shri Om Parkash, Patwari, brought the summoned record, i.e., mutations No. 248, dated 13.11.2007, 269 dated 29.03.2001 and 273, dated 11.01.2001, which are Ex. PW-2/R-A, Ex. PW-2/R-B and Ex. PW-2/R-C. PW-3/R, Shri Jiwan Kumar, brought the records from the office of Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Settlement Officer (Sales), Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. He has brought on record two letters, which are Ex. PW-2/R-A, Ex. PW-2/R-B and Ex. PW-2/R-C. PW-3/R, Shri Jiwan Kumar, brought the records from the office of Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Settlement Officer (Sales), Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. He has brought on record two letters, which are Ex. PW-3/R-A and Ex.PW-3/R-B. This witness, in his cross-examination, stated that proceedings under the Displaced Persons and Compensation Rehabilitation Act, 1954, are pending before the Chief Settlement Commissioner and they are not yet finalized and the letters, Ex. PW-3/R-A and Ex. PW-3/R-B, are also subject matter of those proceedings. PW-4, Shri Mani Ram, Kanungo (Records) in the office of S.D.O. (Civil) Jogindernagar, has produced the copy of order, which is Ex. PW-2/R-B. As per his version, the plaintiff-Board appealed against the said order before the Sub Divisional Collector, Jogindernagar. He has also testified the copy of order dated 05.02.2007, which is Ex. PW-4/A-R. He has further stated that the case was remanded to the Assistant Collector, Grade-II, Jogindernagar and consequently, order of mutation No. 269, dated 29.03.2001, was cancelled. 36. After elaborately discussing the ocular as well as documentary evidence, it is apt to throw light on the contentions raised during the course of arguments by the parties. 37. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-Board has vehemently argued that the oral and documentary evidence speaks volumes that plaintiff-Board is owner of Jogindernagar Power House and defendant No. 2/State of Himachal Pradesh has nothing to do with the same. He has further argued that original plaintiff-Board is absolute owner of Khasra No. 566, 567 and 568, measuring 2-2-3 bighas, located in Mauza Shanan/393, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. and defendant No. 1, who has unauthorizedly raised construction on the disputed premises over the above said land be evicted thereform. He has further argued that mutation No. 273, dated 29.03.2001, whereby defendant No. 2/State of Himachal Pradesh is reflected as owner of the property in dispute, be declared null and void and the same be also declared not binding upon the plaintiff-Board. Lastly, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-Board has argued that keeping in view overall facts and circumstances of the case and after testing the same with the aid of law, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction and possession be passed in favour of the plaintiff-Board. Lastly, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-Board has argued that keeping in view overall facts and circumstances of the case and after testing the same with the aid of law, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction and possession be passed in favour of the plaintiff-Board. Conversely, the learned counsel for legal representatives of defendant No. 1 argued that the present suit is not maintainable, as the suit should have been filed with lowest rung have territorial jurisdiction. He has argued that the original defendant No. 1 got the land from one Abdul Gafur, who after the partition of country, went to Pakistan. He, alternatively, has taken the plea of adverse possession. He has argued that his possession was peaceful, uninterrupted, naked, hostile and to the knowledge of plaintiff-Board. He has further argued that revenue entries nowhere reflects plaintiff-Board as owner of the disputed land and after raising construction there is electricity and water connections to the disputed premises, which also proves strengthens his plea of adverse possession. Lastly, he has argued that plaintiff-Board has no right, title and interest over the disputed property, so the suit be dismissed with costs. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that jurisdiction of this Court is barred under Section 36 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, as property has been acquired under the provisions of the said Act. He has further argued that Raja Jogindersain Bahadur was not competent to sign the agreement, Ex. PW-8/A, as alleged, with the erstwhile State of Punjab. He has argued that agreement, dated 03.03.1925 is wrong. He has further argued that the property in dispute falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court, however, the jurisdiction of this Court is barred under the provisions of Section 36 of the Displaced persons (C&R) Act, 1954 and under Section 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. Lastly, he has prayed that the suit has no merits and the same be dismissed. 38. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-Board has placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Baleshwar Tewari vs. Sheo Jatan Tiwary, (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 112; 2. P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & others vs. Revamma & others, (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 59; 3. Partap Kaur vs. Ismail Mohd., 2007(4) Civil Court Cases 370 (P&H); 4. Bhupinder Singh & others vs. M/S Malik Singh Mehar Singh, 2008(2) Civil Court Cases 315 (P&H); 5. Baleshwar Tewari vs. Sheo Jatan Tiwary, (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 112; 2. P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & others vs. Revamma & others, (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 59; 3. Partap Kaur vs. Ismail Mohd., 2007(4) Civil Court Cases 370 (P&H); 4. Bhupinder Singh & others vs. M/S Malik Singh Mehar Singh, 2008(2) Civil Court Cases 315 (P&H); 5. Hardev Singh vs. Prem Pal & another, 2009(4) Civil Court Cases 729 (P&H); 6. Param Dev & others vs. State of H.P. & others, 2014 (2) Himachal Law Reporter; 7. Jaswant Singh & others vs. Iqbal Singh, 2018(1) Himachal Law Reporter 575. 39. In Baleshwar Tewari vs. Sheo Jatan Tiwary, (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 112, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “…………..Entries in the revenue records is the paradise of the patwari and the tiller of the soil is rarely concerned with the same. So long as his possession and enjoyment is not interdicted by due process and course of law, he is least concerned with entries. It is common knowledge in rural India that a raiyat always regards the land he ploughs as his dominion and generally obeys, with moral fiber the command of the intermediary so long as his possession is not disturbed. Therefore, creation of records is camouflage to defeat just and legal right or claim and interest of the raiyat, the tiller of the soil on whom the Act confers title to the land he tills.” After having perused the revenue entries, it is revealed that at no point of time the revenue records reflected the name of original defendant No. 1 or his predecessors in interest. No doubt, the revenue record shows that the disputed land was owned by defendant No. 2/State of H.P. and even this entry remained fluctuating, but at no point of time there is any mention of defendant No. 1 or his predecessors-in-interest. Therefore, this case is covered by the judgment (supra) rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. No doubt presumption of truth is attached to the revenue entries, however, revenue entries are also paradise of the patwari and creation of records is a camouflage to defeat just and legal right or claim and interest of the true owner, as entries subsequent are stray entries. Thus, Court needs to scrutinize the revenue entries with the aid of subsidiary material available on record. Thus, Court needs to scrutinize the revenue entries with the aid of subsidiary material available on record. In the case in hand, even the revenue entries do not talk about defendant No. 1 or his predecessors-in-interest. Therefore, the judgment (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. 40. In P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & others vs. Revamma & others, (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 59, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “5. Adverse possession in one sense is based on the theory or presumption that the owner has abandoned the property to the adverse possessor or on the acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims of the person in possession. It follows that sound qualities of a typical adverse possession lie in it being open, continuous and hostile. ………….. 6. Efficacy of adverse possession law in most jurisdictions depend on strong limitation statutes by operation of which right to access the court expires through efflux of time. As against rights of the paper-owner, in the context of adverse possession, there evolves a set of competing rights in favour of the adverse possessor who has, for a long period of time, cared for the land, developed it, as against the owner of the property who has ignored the property. Modern statutes of limitation operate, as a rule, not only to cut off one's right to bring an action for the recovery of property that has been in the adverse possession of another for a specified time, but also to vest the possessor with title. The intention of such statutes is not to punish one who neglects to assert rights, but to protect those who have maintained the possession of property for the time specified by the statute under claim of right or color of title. (See American Jurisprudence, Vol. 3, 2d, Page 81). It is important to keep in mind while studying the American notion of Adverse Possession, especially in the backdrop of Limitation Statutes, that the intention to dispossess can not be given a complete go by. Simple application of Limitation shall not be enough by itself for the success of an adverse possession claim.” The judgment (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case, as the party taking the plea of adverse possession has to prove that the owner has abandoned the land. Simple application of Limitation shall not be enough by itself for the success of an adverse possession claim.” The judgment (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case, as the party taking the plea of adverse possession has to prove that the owner has abandoned the land. Though, after perusing the revenue records, it is found that in the column of possession name of one Abdul Gafur is recorded. However, defendant No. 1 has failed to establish relation with that Abdul Gafur, as it is pleaded by defendant No. 1 has Abdul Gafur went to Pakistan and he gave the disputed land to his predecessors-in-interest, whereupon he raised construction. Defendant No. 1 has also failed to establish his relation with said Abdul Gafur. Thus, the plea of defendant No. 1 that he has become owner by way of adverse possession is not legally tenable, as owner of the disputed land did not abandon the land, further case of the plaintiff-Board that earlier the land was on lease with defendant No. 1., inspires confidence. 41. In Partap Kaur vs. Ismail Mohd., 2007(4) Civil Court Cases 370 (P&H), the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held as under: “9. Surjan Singh’s case (supra) (1985 PLJ 611) will also have no applicability as the ration of this judgment is that permissive possession cannot be converted into adverse possession. Even while so holding this Court had observed that the permissive possession cannot be converted into adverse possession unless it is proved that the person in possession asserted adverse title to the property to the knowledge of the true owner for a period of 12 years or more. In the present case, the respondent-plaintiff had asserted his title on the basis of being in possession for 14-15 years prior to the filing of the suit which was not so in the case of Surjan Singh (supra). The oral as well as documentary evidence available in this case clearly show that defendant No. 1 or his predecessors-in-interest were not even recorded in the revenue record as possessors of the disputed land. Thus, the plea of having become owner of the disputed land by way of adverse possession is not tenable in view of permissive possession of defendant No. 1, as lessee for running a tea stall. 42. Thus, the plea of having become owner of the disputed land by way of adverse possession is not tenable in view of permissive possession of defendant No. 1, as lessee for running a tea stall. 42. In Bhupinder Singh & others vs. M/S Malik Singh Mehar Singh, 2008(2) Civil Court Cases 315 (P&H), the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held as under: “9. …. …. …. …. …. …. ….This fact has not been controverted by said Bhupinder Singh as he could not explain as to how he was the owner of the property or how he had come in possession of the same. Once it had been established that Bhupinder Singh was a licencee over the property in question, the mere fact that he had obtained electricity connections and water connection in his name for the said facilities available in the property under his occupation is not ground to hold that he had become its owner by way of adverse possession. …………” Certainly, mere obtaining electricity and water connections in the disputed property would not entitle defendant No. 1 to successfully claim the plea of adverse possession. The judgment (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. 43. In Hardev Singh vs. Prem Pal & another, 2009(4) Civil Court Cases 729 (P&H), the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held as under: “10. …. …. …. ….The only reliance is on the revenue record. But the property was within the municipal limits. It is well settled that the entries in the revenue record are not entries of title and therefore, do not confer any right in favour of the appellant.” Indeed, title cannot be ascertained solely on the basis of revenue entries and it is settled law that revenue entries do not confer any right in favour of the party having those entries. However, in the case in hand, even the entries in the revenue record are not reflective of the fact that defendant No. 1 or his predecessors-in-interest remained in possession of the land. The judgment (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case. 44. In Param Dev & others vs. State of H.P. & others, 2014 (2) Himachal Law Reporter, the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh High Court has held as under: “10. …. …. …. ….The only reliance is on the revenue record. The judgment (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case. 44. In Param Dev & others vs. State of H.P. & others, 2014 (2) Himachal Law Reporter, the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh High Court has held as under: “10. …. …. …. ….The only reliance is on the revenue record. But the property was within the municipal limits. It is well settled that the entries in the revenue record are not entries of title and therefore, do not confer any right in favour of the appellant.” No doubt it is well settled that entries in the revenue record are not entries of title, only presumption of truth is attach to the entries in the revenue record. However, in the case in hand no revenue entry is in the name of defendant No. 1 or his predecessors-in-interest. A perusal of revenue record demonstrates that entries are on the name of one Abdul Gafur, who during the year 1947 went to Pakistan and defendant No. 1 pleads that his predecessors-in-interest got the disputed land from Abdul Gafur, but defendant No. 1 and his legal heirs failed establish any relationship of their predecessors-in-interest with said Abdul Gafur. Also in the wake of the fact that revenue record nowhere reflects any entry on the name of defendant No. 1 or his predecessors-in-interest, thus this plea of defendant No. 1 that his predecessors-in-interest got the disputed land from one Abdul Gafur fails. The judgment (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. 45. In Jaswant Singh & others vs. Iqbal Singh, 2018(1) Himachal Law Reporter 575, the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has held as under: “13. It is well settled law that plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. As such, a person who claims adverse possession should prove; (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed.” … … … … In the case in hand, none of the ingredients, as set out in the judgment (supra), qua the adverse possession, have even been remotely available to defendant No. 1 and his legal representatives. Therefore, the judgment (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and defendant No. 1 and his legal representatives could not establish adverse possession. 46. On the other hand, learned counsel for defendant No. 1 (now defendants No. 1(a) to 1(e)) has placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements in order to fortify his arguments: 1. State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Ajay Vij and others, 2011 (1) Shimla Law Cases 452 & 2. Kaushalya Devi and others vs. Smt. Sito Devi and others, Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 402. 47. In State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Ajay Vij and others, 2011 (1) Shimla Law Cases 452, the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has held as under: “19. There is no foundation for entering plaintiff as tenant on suit land vide jamabandi for the year 1966-67 Ex.DW-1/A. In Durga (deceased) and others vs. Milkhi Ram and others 1969 P.L.J. 105, the Supreme Court has upheld the finding of the High Court that although the presumption would be in favour of the later entries but that presumption was a rebutable one and it would stand rebutted by the fact that the alteration in the later entries was made unauthorisedly or mistakenly, there being no material to justify the change of entries. In the present case, there is nothing on record on what basis the entry in jamabandi for the year 1966-67 was made. Once the change in favour of plaintiff in the jamabandi for the year 1966-67 has not been established, the subsequent entries in revenue record are based on change reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1966-67 which was unauthorized, hence respondents cannot take benefit of such change. Therefore, no presumption of truth is attached to revenue record showing plaintiff and thereafter his successor as tenant over the suit land from 1966-67 onwards.” No doubt in the case in hand, the entries in the revenue record qua the disputed land kept on fluctuating, but at no point of time the name of defendant No. 1 or his predecessors-in-interest was reflected in the revenue entries. In fact, defendant No. 1 or his predecessors-in-interest had no concerned with the land in dispute. In fact, defendant No. 1 or his predecessors-in-interest had no concerned with the land in dispute. Even if it is assumed that the revenue entries were made unauthorizedly or mistakenly then also the benefit of the same cannot be given to defendants No. 1(a) to 1(e), who are legal representatives of defendant No. 1. Thus, the judgment (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 48. In Kaushalya Devi and others vs. Smt. Sito Devi and others, Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 402, the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has held as under: “10. At this stage, it would be apt to quote the celebrated decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Durga v. Milkhi Ram 1969 PLJ 105, wherein it has been held that :- ".......Where the earlier revenue entries were changed in the later revenue entries and the change was effected without any mutation and there was no order of the revenue authorities showing how the change was made, held, although the presumption (under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act would be in favour of the later entries but that presumption was a rebuttable one and it would stand rebutted by the fact that the alteration in the later entries was made unauthorisedly or mistakably, there being no material to justify the change of entries........." 11. From the record, I find that there is neither any order of the revenue authorities showing how the change has been effected, nor any order of mutation ordering correction, therefore, the conclusion which can be drawn is that the alteration in the later entries have been made unauthorisedly or mistakably. There being no material to justify the change of such entries, accordingly, the presumption attached to such entries under Section 45 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act stands reverted. Similar preposition of law has been considered by this Court in Kanshi Ram vs. Harbhajan singh Bhajji, AIR 2002 HP 154 , wherein this Court has held:- 13. There being no material to justify the change of such entries, accordingly, the presumption attached to such entries under Section 45 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act stands reverted. Similar preposition of law has been considered by this Court in Kanshi Ram vs. Harbhajan singh Bhajji, AIR 2002 HP 154 , wherein this Court has held:- 13. At the time of hearing it was not disputed on behalf of the parties that change in the record of rights as well as periodical record is permissible, provided, if is carried out in accordance with the provisions of H. P. Land Revenue Act as well as H.P. Land Records Manual, 1954, (this case pertains to the period when this land Record Manual was inforce in the Mahasu District where this land was situate). 14. Though, learned counsel for the defendant persisted with vehemence that even translation Ex. PW-4/K (supra) was an order passed by the competent Revenue Officer under law. She was unable to explain and satisfy the Court as to how this order came to be passed and under what authority of law. To be fair to her it may also be observed that she did not dispute that this order on its reading appears to have been passed in the absence of the plaintiff. This otherwise what emanates from Ex. PW-4/ K. 15. Therefore, in the absence of any admission on the part of the plaintiff conceding the possession of the plaintiff so as to enable the Revenue Authorities to change the entries on its basis; or in the absence of any legal order from either a Revenue or Civil Court, presumption of truth attached to the entries contained in Ex. PW-1/E is not available to the defendant. Though Ms. Mehta submitted that the presumption is still available. To the specific query of the Court as to how the entries were changed as observed hereinabove for the first time in the year 1978- 1979, no explanation could be given by her. In these circumstances, how the matter needs to be looked into, is no more res integra. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Durga v. Milkhi Ram 1969 PLJ 105. In these circumstances, how the matter needs to be looked into, is no more res integra. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Durga v. Milkhi Ram 1969 PLJ 105. What was observed in this case and squarely covers the present case is extracted herein below :- “…….Where the earlier revenue entries were changed in the later revenue entries and the change was effected without any mutation and there was no order of the revenue authorities showing how the change was made, held, although the presumption (under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act would be in favour of the later entries but that presumption was a rebuttable one and it would stand rebutted by the fact that the alteration in the later entries was made unauthorisedly or mistakably, there being no material to justify the change of entries........." Certainly, in the absence of any plausible reason emanating from the revenue authorities showing how the earlier revenue entries were changed, the presumption of truth to the changed revenue entries cannot be attached. However, in the case in hand revenue entries at no point of time came in favour of defendant No. 1 or his predecessors-in-interest. Thus, the judgment (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 49. The learned counsel for defendants No. 1(a) to 1(e) has also argued that the land in dispute was an evacuee property which came rightly in the ownership of defendant No. 2/State of H.P. However, this argument seems to be baseless, as nothing has come on record that the property in dispute was ever declared as an evacuee property. No notification, order etc. has seen the light of the day, which establishes that the property in disputed was declared as an evacuee property. Thus, the argument that the property in dispute was declared evacuee property has no legs and the same is not legally sustainable. 50. After scrutinizing the ocular evidence, which is not of the degree to overweigh the documentary evidence and, in fact, the documentary evidence, in the case in hand, is of compelling force, so as to arrive on definitive conclusion solely after careful scrutiny of the documentary evidence. 50. After scrutinizing the ocular evidence, which is not of the degree to overweigh the documentary evidence and, in fact, the documentary evidence, in the case in hand, is of compelling force, so as to arrive on definitive conclusion solely after careful scrutiny of the documentary evidence. As such, after scrutinizing oral as well as documentary evidence and also the law, issues No. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of plaintiff-Board and against the defendants, as the plaintiff-Board has proved that defendant No. 1 was lessee on a portion of the disputed land for running a tea stall for lease amount of Rs.3/- per month. Issue No. 3: 51. The jurisdiction of this Court is questioned under two counts, viz., (i) jurisdiction of this Court is barred under Section 36 of the Displaced Persons (C& R) Act, 1954 and (ii) jurisdiction of this Court is also barred under Section 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. As in the present case, the question of title is involved, so the jurisdiction of this Court is not barred under Section 171 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. The jurisdiction of this Court is also not barred under Section 36 of the Displaced Persons (C& R) Act, 1954, as the Act itself stands repealed. Therefore, this issue is decided in negative and it is held that this Court has every jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. Issue No. 4: 52. It is contended by defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff-Board has filed a similar suit for a portion of the same land in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Jogindernagar, against one Shri Sansar Chand. The plaintiff-Board has refuted this contention of defendant No. 1. Defendants 1(a) to 1(e) have failed to prove that any suit was pending before the learned Civil Judge, Jogindernagar, against one Shri Sansar Chand or against the defenants. Thus, this issue is decided against defendant No. 1. Issue No. 5: 53. It is contended that the present suit is barred by time. As per the plaintiff-Board during the years 1999-2000 defendant No. raised construction of a house over the disputed land and despite legal notice dated 11.10.2004 he did not hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the plaintiff-Board. Issue No. 5: 53. It is contended that the present suit is barred by time. As per the plaintiff-Board during the years 1999-2000 defendant No. raised construction of a house over the disputed land and despite legal notice dated 11.10.2004 he did not hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the plaintiff-Board. The plaintiff-board further called upon defendant No.2/State of Himachal Pradesh to acknowledge and attorn its ownership over the disputed land by reviewing mutation No. 273, but to no avail. Thus, according to the plaintiff-Board, the cause of action continued in its favour on and after 1999, when defendant No. 1 raised construction of the premises in dispute and he failed to hand over the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff-Board. Defendant No. 2 illegally got attested mutation No. 273, dated 29.03.2001 attested in its favour qua the ownership of the suit premises and the same was not rectified, despite issuance of notice by the plaintiff-Board. Thus, cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiff-Board on 11.10.2004 when the defendants were issued legal notice under Section 80 of CPC. Thus, the present suit is well within time. Accordingly, the issue is decided in negative against the defendants. Relief: 54. The cumulative effect of the above discussion on the issues under consideration is that the suit of the plaintiff-Board succeeds and is accordingly decreed in the following terms: (a) The plaintiff-Board is held absolute owner of Khasras No. 566, 567 and 568, kittas 3, measuring 2-2-3 bighas, situate in Mauza Shanan/393, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P.; (b) Decree for possession for the premises in dispute is passed in favour of the plaintiff-Board and against the defendants; (c) Decree for prohibitory injunction is passed against the defendants and they are restrained from changing the nature of the suit property; & (d) Decree of mandatory injunction is passed declaring that mutation No. 273, dated 29.03.2001, is null and void. A decree sheet be drawn accordingly. 55. Before parting with the judgment, it is observed that as per the plaintiff-Board, original defendant No. 1 and defendants No. 1(a) to 1(e), predecessors-in-interest of defendant No. 1 was given a portion of the suit land on lease basis and thus they remained in permissive possession till the year 1985 and thereafter the lease was not renewed. 55. Before parting with the judgment, it is observed that as per the plaintiff-Board, original defendant No. 1 and defendants No. 1(a) to 1(e), predecessors-in-interest of defendant No. 1 was given a portion of the suit land on lease basis and thus they remained in permissive possession till the year 1985 and thereafter the lease was not renewed. Therefore, after considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the plaintiff-Board will consider the case of defendants No. 1(a) to 1(e), in case an application is moved by them, for leasing out suitable land to them on reasonable terms on its own merits. 56. In view of the above, the suit is disposed of as also pending application(s), if any.