IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.106/2024 Date of Decision: 11th November, 2025. Deep Chand .....Appellant Versus Himmat Ram and Ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 5. Respondents No.6 to 12 are proceeded against ex parte. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The appellant, in the case at hand, was the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. The suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff before the learned trial Court was for declaration qua the suit land to the extent that the plaintiff along with the proforma defendants/respondents i.e. No.6 to 9(i) to 9(iv) are owners in possession therein and the revenue entries showing respondents/defendants tenants of the suit land are wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff/appellant. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. 3. In the suit, it has been averred that the grandmother of the appellant/plaintiff and proforma respondents/defendants had executed a gift deed in favour of the predecessor-in- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 interest of respondents No.4 and 5. The said gift was challenged during the pendency of the suit so filed laying a challenge to the aforesaid gift deed, parties to the lis entered into a legal compromise dated 24.10.1980. In the suit it was averred that in terms of the compromise that rights in the suit land have been accorded in favour of the present appellant/plaintiff. However, on account of a clerical error in the revenue record, the contesting respondents/defendants have been shown to be his tenants. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, an application for correction of the revenue record was filed before the Land Reforms Officer and the same was allowed by him. However, aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the contesting respondents/defendants before the learned ADM concerned, who vide order dated 18.06.2014 accepted the appeal preferred by respondents No.4, 5 and directed the parties to seek relief in the Civil Court. 5. It is in furtherance thereto that the appellant/plaintiff had filed the suit in the case at hand before the learned trial Court on 19.08.2014. The suit so filed was dismissed, vide judgment dated 13.11.2020. Appeal preferred there against by the appellant/plaintiff before the First Appellate Court was dismissed on 27.12.2023. In the aforesaid, facts and attending circumstances, the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed. 3 6. It has been correctly observed by the First Appellate Court that insofar as the rights of parties qua the land was concerned, the same stood decided in terms of the compromise entered into inter se the predecessor-in-interests of the parties in the previous lis, which resulted in the compromise dated 24.10.1980. 7. Wrong revenue entries made on the basis of record existing prior to the compromise dated 24.10.1980 was correctly assailed by the present appellant/plaintiff before the Land Reforms Officer in order to get it in consonance with the aforesaid compromise. Appeal preferred there against the said order by respondent Nos.4, 5 was allowed by the ADM vide his order dated 18.06.2014, whereby he directed the parties to seek relief in the Civil Court. 8. The First Appellate Court has correctly placed reliance on the rules and orders of the Himachal Pradesh High Court specifically Volume-I Chapter XIII, which deals with the jurisdiction of Civil and Revenue Court. The relevant extract whereof reads as follows:- “2. Jurisdiction of Civil and Revenue Courts. (a) If it is found that the suit relates to a matter of which only Revenue Court can take cognizance, the plaint should be returned for presentation to the competent Revenue Court. (b) In view of Section 46 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 a person considering himself aggrieved by an entry in a Record of 4 Rights or Annual Record, as to any right of which he is in possession, may institute a suit for a declaration of his right under Chapter VI of Specific Relief Act, 1963, but Civil Court has no jurisdiction to order correction of such an entry in view of Section 171 (2)(xvii) & 171 (2) (xviii) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. Civil Courts shall only grant a declaration of the right after which the entry shall be corrected by the revenue authorities themselves.” 9. Other than the aforesaid, in support of the submissions so made the counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in R.S.D.V. Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd., v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd., AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2094, Athmanathaswami Devasthanam v. K. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 338 and that of the High Court of Allahabad in Governing Council of Kayastha Pathshala, Prayag and others v. Ram Chandra Srivastava and others, AIR 1992 Allahabad 158. The law laid down in these judgments amply demonstrate that where the Court arrives at a conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to try a suit, the appropriate order to be passed should not be dismissal of the suit but qua the return of the plaint for presentation before the appropriate forum. 10. Admittedly, the jurisdiction of a Civil Court is specifically barred by Section 171(2)(xvii) and (xviii) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act qua repetition of an earlier relief already granted to the parties to a lis. The appellant’s/plaintiff's allegations, 5 even if taken at face value, do not pertain to a declaration of a title but rather fall squarely within the ambit of the statutory bar. The remedy for any grievance in the case at hand lay in filing an appeal or revision before the higher revenue authorities. 11. Therefore, an order to return the plaint in this case may not serve any purpose. To serve the ends of justice the judgment and decree under challenge in this appeal is quashed and the plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty reserved to resort to the remedy available to them before appropriate forum having jurisdiction to entertain and decide the controversy between the parties in accordance with law i.e. to assail order dated 18.06.2014, passed by the ADM, before the appropriate Revenue Courts/Tribunal 12. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the present appeal is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 11th November, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)