IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.3 of 2016 Decided on: 17.11.2025 Vijay Kumar & others ….Appellants Versus Bhagtu Ram & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jai Ram Sharma and Mr. Sahil Dixit Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2015, passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Appeal No.39 of 2004, whereby the appeal of the respondents/plaintiffs preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31st December, 2003, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Suit No.186 of 1996, RBT No.470 of 2003 was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court was set aside. 2. At the outset it will be relevant to notice as under: 2 2.1 The Consolidation Officer, exercising powers under the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) had passed an order dated 19.04.1993, Ext D-2, whereby an entry in the records of rights, showing defendants to be non-occupancy tenants over land comprised in Khasra No.571 (old) corresponding to Khasra No.565 (new) measuring 3 Kanals, 2 Marlas in Village Tika Bharoli Bhagaur, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”) was ordered to be made. 2.2 The aforesaid order had attained finality and resultantly mutation number 362 dated 12.07.1993 was attested. 2.3 The plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No.186 of 1996 on 25.06.1996 seeking relief in following terms: “It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of land comprising Khata no.89 min old, New 53 min, Khatoni No.102 min, Khasra No.571 old, New Khasra no 565 area 8K- 6M, situated in village Bharoli Bhagaur, Tappa Bathol, Tehsil Nadan, District Hamirpur (HP) according to jamabandi for the year 1990-91 and any change in revenue record and allotment of 3K- 2M to defendants by the consolidation officer, Hamirpur vide mutation no.362 dated 12.7.93 on the basis of tenancy is illegal, beyond facts and 3 law, at the back of plaintiffs hence null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff and the defendants had never been the tenants of the plaintiffs and got the revenue entries changed in 1993 with connivance of revenue authorities which are not binding upon the plaintiffs with a further prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering over the suit land in any manner and also from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land forcibly be passed in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants with costs.” 3. Thus, the plaintiffs/respondents indirectly laid challenge to the order of Consolidation Officer Ext.D-2 as mutation No.362 dated 12.07.1993 had its basis in the said order. 4. Learned trial Court had framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land in suit and any change in revenue record and allotment of 3 Kanals 2 Marlas to defendants by the C.O. Hamirpur on the basis of tenancy is illegal, beyond facts and law behind the plaintiffs hence null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus- standi to file the suit? OPD. 4 5 Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit? OPD. 6. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 8. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs under Section 35-A CPC? OPD. 9. Relief.” 5. Issues No.1, 2, 7 and 8 were decided in negative, whereas all other issues were decided in affirmative. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Learned trial court had held the suit of the plaintiffs to be not maintainable before the Civil Court 6. In first appeal, the learned first appellate Court reversed the findings returned by learned trial Court and held the suit to be within jurisdiction of Civil Court on the ground that the order Ext. D-2 passed by Consolidation Officer was without jurisdiction. 7. The instant appeal was admitted for hearing on 4.1.2016 on the following substantial questions of law: (i)Whether the learned lower appellate Court has wrongly decided the issue regarding jurisdiction as such the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be set aside. 5 (ii)Whether the findings of learned lower appellate court are perverse to the evidence oral and as well as documentary on record as such, the impugned judgment and decree deserve to be set aside. 8. On 26.4.2024 an additional question was framed as under: “Whether the findings of learned First Appellate Court are beyond the pleadings of the parties.” 9. Perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial Court reveals that the said Court had found on facts that the order Ext. D-2 passed by the consolidation officer was in the proceedings inter se the parties. As per learned trial court, plaintiffs had failed to prove that the order had been passed at their back by the consolidation Officer. Further, since the order had been passed by the Consolidation Officer after hearing both sides, learned trial Court held the scope of the suit to be outside the purview of Civil Court. Reference was made to the specific bar laid in that behalf under Section 57 of the Act and Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. As noticed above, learned first appellate Court has reversed the judgment passed by learned trial Court by holding that the order Ext. D-2 passed by consolidation officer was nullity. 6 11. Sections 14, 15 and 17 of the Act reads as under: “14. Declaration regarding consolidation.- (1) The State Government may declare that in the interests of the general public and for the purposes of better cultivation of land it has decided to make a scheme of consolidation for any estate or a group of estates or a sub-division of an estate. (2) Every such declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette and in the estate or estates concerned in the prescribed manner. 15 Effect of declaration.- (1) On the publication of the declaration under section 14, an estate, group of estates or a sub-division of an estate, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be under consolidation operations from the date of such publication until the publication of the notification that the consolidation operations have been closed. (2) Where an estate, group of estates or a sub- division of an estate is under consolidation operations, the duty of maintaining the maps, field book and preparing the annual record under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (Act No. 6 of 1954), as applicable to the areas which formed part of the Himachal Pradesh immediately before the 1 st day of November, 1966, and the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887), as applicable in the areas added to Himachal Pradesh under section 5 of the Punjab Re- organisation Act, 1966 (Act No. 31 of 1966), and the rules framed thereunder, shall stand 7 transferred to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), and thereupon all the powers conferred on the Collector and Assistant Collector, under the said Acts and rules, shall, so long as an estate, group of estates or a sub-division of an estate remains under consolidation operations, be exercised by the following officers:- 1. The Director of Consolidation of Holdings. 2. Settlement Officer (Consolidation). 3. Consolidation Officer. 4. Assistant Consolidation Officer. (3) The State Government may by notification confer on any officer mentioned in sub-section (2) the powers of Collector, all or any of the powers with which an Assistant Collector, may be invested under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (Act No. 6 of 1954), or the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887), as the case may be. 16 xxx xxx xxxx 17. Revision and correction of records.- (1) Where on an examination of the village map, field-book and the record-of-rights, the Consolidation Officer or the Assistant Consolidation Officer is of the opinion that a revision of maps or records is necessary before proceeding further with the preparation of provisional consolidation scheme, he shall recommend to the State Government accordingly. 8 (2) Where he is of the opinion that a revision of maps and records is not necessary, he shall proceed to carry out in the manner prescribed a field to field partal with the help of the village map and field book and shall correct the entries in the revenue records in accordance with the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (Act No. 6 of 1954), or the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887), as the case may be, and the rules framed thereunder.” 12. It is not in dispute that the consolidation operations were in force in the Revenue Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, when order Ext. D-2 was passed by the Consolidation Officer. It was also not the case of the plaintiffs that the State Government had not published declaration in terms of Section 14 of the Act. That being so, the Consolidation Officer had jurisdiction to make corrections in the record of rights in terms of Sections 15 and 17 of the Act. The order Ext. D-2 also reveals exercise of such jurisdiction by the Consolidation Officer. By taking into consideration the revenue entries in the year 1975-1976, the Consolidation Officer had ordered the correction in the records of rights. 13. Thus, the conclusion drawn by learned first appellate Court that the order Ext. D-2 was a nullity cannot be sustained. Since, the Consolidation Officer had jurisdiction to order the 9 correction in revenue entries, the order Ext. D-2 could not have been tested by the Civil Court for its correctness. The plaintiffs/respondents, if aggrieved had remedy to challenge the said order in terms of provisions of the Act as also H.P. Land Revenue Act, which they had failed to do. 14. In result, substantial question of law as finds mention as noticed in para 7(i) supra is decided in favour of the appellants/defendants. It is held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents and the findings, conclusions drawn by learned first appellate Court to the contrary are against law. 15. In view of what has been held above, there is no need to answer the other substantial questions of law as framed in the case, having been rendered redundant. 16. In light of above discussion, the appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree dated 27.10.2015, passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Appeal No.39 of 2004, is set aside and the judgment and decree dated 31st December, 2003, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Suit No.186 of 1996, RBT No.470 of 2003 is affirmed. 17. Decree sheet be prepared. 10 18. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge November 17, 2025 (vt)