JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Through the instant petition, the petitioners claim a pronouncement, for, setting aside and quashing, of, the order recorded, on 16.05.2012, by the Commissioner, Mandi Division, whereby, he proceeded to reverse, the orders recorded, on, 28.10.2004 by the Settlement Collector, and, thereafter proceeded to remand case No. 193/2005 vis-a-vis the Collector Settlement, Kangra Division, Dharamshala, for rendering a fresh decision thereon in accordance, with, the pronouncement recorded, on 16.05.2012. 2. A bare reading of the order impugned, before this Court, makes, apparent under scorings, of the Commissioner, Mandi Division, while pronouncing it, his being aware of the factum, of, rendition of a judgment, and, decree, by the learned Sub Judge, Hamirpur, on 12.12.1969, in, Civil Suit No. 76 of 1968. The records, of the aforesaid, civil suit, were summoned from the Court concerned. A perusal thereof, discloses, that therein, rather the respondents herein, not, protesting vis-a-vis devolution, of estate, of one Chandu vis-a-vis one Bishan Devi, in consequence thereof, an apposite mutation, was, attested vis-a-vis Bishan Devi. Subsequent thereto, a gift deed was executed, by Bishan Devi qua the land, as, encapsulated in case No.193 of 2005, upon the petitioners herein, and, thereafter, the Settlement Collector hence proceeded, through, a fard badar, to, make apposite vestment of rights, in, consonance with the gift deed, made by one Bishan Devi, rather, upon the petitioners. However the aforesaid vestment, of rights vis-a-vis the donees of Bishan Devi, was, purportedly challenged by the contesting respondents, and, their challenge, hence through, the impugned order rather succeeded. The petitioners being aggrieved therefrom, have instituted the instant petition before this Court, wherein, they make a prayer, for the quashing of the impugned orders. 3. The contesting respondents, and, the State of Himachal Pradesh, filed their respective replies, wherein, they concerted, to validate the impugned orders, on anvil, of, para 8.5.3(b) of the H.P. Land Records manual, and, on anvil of a revision petition pending, for disposal before the learned Financial Commissioner concerned, and, contended that awaiting any decision being rendered thereon, this Court hence not proceeding to pronounce, any decision, upon, the instant writ petition. 4. 4. Be that as it may, with the judgment and decree pronounced, upon, Civil Suit No. 78 of 1968, by the learned trial Court concerned, being evidently at this stage, not displayed, to be reversed by any decision recorded, by the Appellate Court concerned, thereupon, it acquires, both conclusivity besides a binding effect. Consequently, with conclusivity being acquired by the judgment and decree, rendered by the trial Court concerned, in Civil Suit No. 78 of 1968, also renders hence the attestation of mutation in consonance therewith, by the Revenue Officer concerned, to be not suffering, from, any vice of any vitiation. Uncontrovertedly, the land acquired, by Bishan Devi, through, a conclusive judgement, and, decree rendered by the Civil Court concerned, and, in consonance therewith hence mutation No.232, was, thereafter, attested, subsequently came to be donated by her vis-a-vis the petitioners herein, (a) nowat, unless the validity of execution, of a gift deed, made, by Bishan Devi vis-a-vis the petitioners herein, was thrown a challenge, by befitting persons, and, only upon the apposite challenge, rather achieving success, (b) thereupon, alone, the apt alienations vis-a-vis the petitioners herein, through, the gift deed made by Bishan Devi vis-a-vis lands in respect whereof, mutation No.232, was attested, would be concluded, hence, to be not holding any optimum validity, nor, the gravest solemnity, (c) whereas, no challenge being evidently thrown thereto, by any befitting person, hence, renders the apt gift deed to be construable, to be validly executed, and , also it being vis-a-vis lands acquired by the donor, through, mutation No.232. In aftermath, the corrections, through, farad badar, made in consonance therewith, by the Settlement Collector, in the apt records appertaining vis-a-vis mutation No.232, also cannot be said to be suffering, from, any vices of any entrenched vitiations or illegalitys, (d) unless evidence was adduced, in respect of inappropriate vestment, of title being made thereunder, by the settlement collector, or evidence stood adduced vis-a-vis the apt corrections rather being, in evident dis-concurrences vis-a-vis mutation No.232. However, no such evidence rather exists on record. If so, with the alienation, made by Bishan Devi, of lands, as, encapsulated, in validly drawn mutation No.232, upon the petitioners, did hence enjoin the Settlement Collector concerned, to, in consonance therewith, make the apt/appropriate corrections, in the revenue record concerned. However, no such evidence rather exists on record. If so, with the alienation, made by Bishan Devi, of lands, as, encapsulated, in validly drawn mutation No.232, upon the petitioners, did hence enjoin the Settlement Collector concerned, to, in consonance therewith, make the apt/appropriate corrections, in the revenue record concerned. Despite the Settlement Collector, meteing deference to the mandate, of, the decree of the Civil Court, and, vis-a-vis the validity, of alienations made, by one Bishan Devi, through, a gift deed, upon, the petitioners herein, contrarily under the impugned order, (e) rather, the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, on anvil of para 8.5.3(b), of the H.P. Land Records Manual, proceeded to rather pay reverence, to the mandate enshrined therein, (f) whereas the statute enjoining, the mightiest, and, the fullest legal clout or sway, is, the H.P. Land Revenue Act, and, the apt provisions borne, in Sections 38 and 46 thereof, provisions whereof, specifically appertain, to, the lis at hand, provisions of Section 38 and 46 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act read as under:- “38. Restrictions on variations of entries in records. - Entries in records-of-rights or in [periodical] records, except entries made in [periodical] records by patwaris under clause (a) of section 36 with respect to undisputed acquisitions of interest referred to in that section, shall not be varied in subsequent records otherwise than by - (a) making entries in accordance with facts proved or admitted to have occurred; (b) making such entries as are agreed to by all the parties interested therein or are supported by a decree or order binding on those parties; and (c) making new maps where it is necessary to make them. 46. Suit for declaratory decree by persons aggrieved by an entry in a record. - If any person considers himself aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession by an entry in a record of rights or in [a periodical] record, he may institute a suit for a declaration of his right under [chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963],” Imminently, do as, but a natural corollary rather prevail upon, and, also undermine the vigour of Para 8.5.3(b), of, the H.P. land Records Manual. 5. 5. The reasons, for coming to the aforesaid conclusions, are, (i) the hereinabove extracted provisions, of the preponderant statute (Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act), hence, containing an explicit mandate vis-a-vis the entries borne in revenue records or in the records of rights, rather not warranting their alterations, or corrections, unless, the conditions set forth therein, evidently beget satiation. Paramount condition whereof, is embodied vis-a-vis alterations, being supported by a decree or an order pronounced, by the Civil Court concerned. As aforestated, with, the judgment and decree pronounced, by the Civil Court concerned, acquiring conclusivity, whereafter, in consonance therewith the apt mutation No.232 stood attested vis-a-vis Bishan Devi, and, when in further sequel thereto one Bishan Devi validly alienated, through, a gift deed, land borne in mutation No.232 vis-a-vis the petitioners herein, (ii) thereupon, the petitioners herein were entitled, to obtain the apposite corrections vis-a-vis the apt therewith hence apposite revenue records. Conspicuously, when the judgment, and, decree rendered by the civil courts, is, under the afore extracted provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act, hence statutorily foisted, with, the apt binding and conclusive effect, and, more so, upon, the revenue officers concerned. The provisions, of, 8.5.3(b) of the H.P, Land Records Manual, as, relied upon by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, for his hence contravening the mandate, of, a conclusive and binding judgment and decree, rendered by the civil court, and, in consonance wherewith, the apposite corrections, through, “farad badar', were, made vis-a-vis the petitioners, (iii) hence, appears to erupt, from his, slighting the mandate, of, the apt provisions (supra), embodied in the H.P. Land Revenue Act, (iv) and, also appears to spur, from, his reading the relevant clause of the H.P. land Records Manual, dis-harmoniously vis-a-vis the mandate, of the afore extracted provisions, of, the H.P. Land Revenue Act, whereas, contrarily, it was incumbent upon the Divisional Commissioner, to beget harmony inter se both, (v) more so, given the paramountancy, of, statutory provisions, obviously hence both undermining, and, blunting the effects, of aforesaid para 8.5.3(b), occurring, in the H.P. Land Records Manual. Moreover, the occurrence, of, apt provisions borne, in, the H.P. Land Revenue Act, are through a legislative enactment, whereas, the occurrence, of, apt provisions, borne, in the H.P. Land Records Manual, are, through a notification, approved by the Governor. Moreover, the occurrence, of, apt provisions borne, in, the H.P. Land Revenue Act, are through a legislative enactment, whereas, the occurrence, of, apt provisions, borne, in the H.P. Land Records Manual, are, through a notification, approved by the Governor. Even if, assumingly para 8.5.3(b), of, the H.P. Land Records Manual, relied upon, by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, for his hence begetting infraction, of, the conclusive and binding decree, recorded by the learned Civil Court concerned, does prevail, upon, the apt statutory provisions, borne, in a valid legislative enactment, (vi) thereupon, also with an interdiction, existing therein, against, through a fard badar, contested corrections qua the rights, title or interest hence being made by the revenue officer concerned, (vii) thereupon with the apposite interdiction, embodied therein, being vis-a-vis contested corrections, whereas, visibly hereat the conclusive and binding judgment, and, decree rendered, by the civil court concerned, upon, Civil Suit No. 78 of 1968, rather terminated the contest, (viii) also, hence rendered the corrections, as, endeavoured by the petitioners, to be hence not contested, rather theirs being supported by a conclusive, and, binding judgment and decree, (ix) thereupon the mandate of Section 38(b), hence, acquires pre-significance and pre-imminence, and, was never amenable, to infraction, as untenably done, by the Divisional Commissioner, (x) unless evidence was adduced before him vis-a-vis the corrections being contested, on anvil, of invalidity, of, apposite mutation No.232, attested vis-a-vis Bishan Devi also evidence existed, of donation, of lands by Bishan Devi, as acquired by her, under a conclusive decree, and, in consonance wherewith, mutation No.232 stood attested, not demonstrably being valid, given it being attested in conflict therewith. Contrarily, when the aforesaid evidence, is amiss hereat, it was not either tenable nor appropriate, for the Divisional Commissioner, to, disconcur with the mandate, encapsulated in Section 38(b) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act or to irrevere the mandate of the conclusive judgment and decree, rendered by the civil court concerned, upon, C.S. No. 78 of 1968. 6. Contrarily, when the aforesaid evidence, is amiss hereat, it was not either tenable nor appropriate, for the Divisional Commissioner, to, disconcur with the mandate, encapsulated in Section 38(b) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act or to irrevere the mandate of the conclusive judgment and decree, rendered by the civil court concerned, upon, C.S. No. 78 of 1968. 6. The mere pendency of a revision petition, before, the Financial Commissioner concerned, would not also preclude this Court, to, pronounce an adjudication, upon, the instant writ petition, especially, when the mandate, of Section 38(b) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, is, applicable vis-a-vis any renditions, made, by the learned Divisional Commissioner concerned, or vis-a-vis renditions made, by the Financial Commissioner, both whereof, are bound by judgments and decrees, rendered by Civil Courts, rather than converse thereof (i) besides when s a specific mandate, is encapsulated, in, Section 46 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, vis-a-vis a person/persons aggrieved, by erroneous entry(ies), occurring, in the records of rights, his/theirs being entitled, to institute a suit, for declaration, (ii) thereupon with the aforesaid Act, also specifically prescribing, a specific mechanism, vis-a-vis the landowners, for, the redressal of his/their grievance, if any, arising, from, erroneous entries, occurring, in the records of rights, (iii) hence also supports, an inference of the judgment and decree, recorded by civil courts concerned, holding the fullest sway and legal clout, and, being amenable for meteing, of, the fullest reverence, by the revenue officers concerned, whereas, apparently, hereat reverence, remained unmeted thereto, (iv) rather the judgement and decree, rendered by the civil court concerned, is visibly flouted, under, the impugned orders, (v) besides the further effect of the aforesaid, is, of during, the pendency, of a civil suit, vis-a-vis subject matters, analogus, inter se the one borne in the civil suit, and, the one borne in petitions cast, before the revenue officers concerned, (vi) thereupon, it being enjoined, upon, the revenue officer concerned, to await the outcome of the lis, pending, before the civil court concerned, (vii) rather than, his proceeding, to, earlier therewith, record a decision, whereupon rather, a legally interdicted obviable conflict inter se his verdict vis-a-vis the verdict, of, civil court, would occur, obviously also, would preclude inapt negations, of, all the statutory effects, of Section 38, and, Section 46 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, whereunder exclusive statutory jurisdiction, for pronouncing, upon, the validity of entries, is rather bestowed, only, upon the civil court concerned. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is allowed, and, the order impugned before this Court, is set aside. This court is deeply perturbed, with the manner in which an apt infraction, is, begotten, of, the conclusive and binding judgment and decree of the Civil Court concerned, by the authorities concerned. However, in future, in case, conclusive and binding mandates, of Civil Courts concerned, are irrevered, by the revenue officers concerned, and, despite the pendency, of, civil suits, in civil courts concerned, vis-a-vis alike matters, pending before the Revenue Officers, the later proceed to draw proceedings, and, hence attempts to usurp, the jurisdiction of civil courts, this Court, may be constrained, to direct the Chief Secretary concerned, to record adverse entries in the ACRs, of, the officers concerned, or to may be draw appropriate proceedings against them. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith. Records be sent back forthwith to the concerned quarter. The Registry is directed to forthwith circulate a copy of this order, to (i) The Financial Commissioner(Appeals); (ii) all the Divisional Commissioners and; (iii) All the Deputy Commissioners/Collectors within the State of H.P.