Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Barred Against Revenue Orders Passed By Incompetent Authority: Himachal Pradesh High Court

"Only the Assistant Collector of the First Grade is competent to confer proprietary rights upon the tenant, and an order passed by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, is nullity and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to go into the question will not be barred," Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that an order passed by an Assistant Collector 2nd Grade regarding tenancy and proprietary rights is a nullity as they lack the statutory competence under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.

A single-judge bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that since only an Assistant Collector 1st Grade (Land Reforms Officer) is empowered to decide such disputes, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to scrutinize such void orders remains intact. The Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming that revenue entries based on unauthorized orders do not bind the rightful owners.

The dispute originated when the plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership and challenged revenue entries made in favor of the defendants based on an order by the Naib Tehsildar (Settlement). The defendants contended that the land was evacuee property and they had established an abadi (residential colony) on it. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding the revenue entries in favor of the defendants to be "stray entries."

The primary legal questions before the High Court involved whether the Civil Court possessed the jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the bar contained in the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The Court was also called upon to determine the effect of a previous judgment between the same parties concerning a different parcel of land and whether it created any contradictory findings that could affect the present case.

AC 2nd Grade Lacks Power To Conclude Tenancy Disputes

The Court noted that the order in question, which sought to alter the revenue record's possession column, was passed by an Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. Under the statutory scheme of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, specifically Chapter IX and Chapter X, the power to confer proprietary rights or resolve disputes regarding tenant status is strictly reserved for higher authorities.

Justice Kainthla emphasized that for any determination regarding the acquisition of proprietary rights by tenants, the law requires an inquiry by a competent Land Reforms Officer. The bench noted that "only the Assistant Collector of the First Grade is competent to confer proprietary rights upon the tenant." Consequently, any order passed by an officer of lower rank is inherently flawed and lacks legal standing.

"These proceedings are, therefore, void ab initio, having been conducted by an officer who is not empowered to exercise the power to grant proprietary rights or to perform any other ancillary act."

Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Barred Against Void Orders

The Court addressed the defendant's argument that Section 112 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. The bench clarified that such a bar only applies to valid orders passed by competent authorities acting within their legal mandate. When an officer acts without jurisdiction, the resulting order is a nullity, and the Civil Court is fully entitled to intervene.

Citing the precedent in Krishan Chand Vs. Jeet Ram, the Court reiterated that if an order is passed by an Assistant Collector 2nd Grade in matters where only the 1st Grade is authorized, the Civil Court’s power to adjudicate the dispute remains. The bench observed that "the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to go into the question will not be barred" when the underlying revenue proceeding is void ab initio.

"Jurisdiction of even Civil Courts is barred to entertain or determine this kind of dispute... Such a question, as per rule 29... is required to be determined only by the Land Reforms Officer, exercising powers of Assistant Collector 1st Grade."

Stray Revenue Entries Do Not Overpower Substantive Title

Regarding the merits of the possession claim, the Court found that the defendants relied on a "stray entry" in the Jamabandi of 1959-60. The bench upheld the findings of the lower courts that a singular, unsupported entry in the revenue record cannot override the continuous record of ownership and possession held by the plaintiff.

The Court further noted that the defendant failed to establish any formal application for the correction of revenue entries that followed the prescribed legal procedure. Since the defendant's name was recorded based on a spot investigation by an incompetent officer rather than a formal adjudication of tenancy rights, the entry carried no legal weight in the face of the plaintiff’s established title.

Findings On Different Khasra Numbers Do Not Create Contradictions

The appellants had argued that a previous judgment in a separate appeal involving the same parties had reached a different conclusion regarding the existence of an abadi. However, the High Court rejected this contention, noting that the two suits pertained to entirely different parcels of land with distinct Khasra and Khewat numbers.

Justice Kainthla observed that "it is apparent that both these parcels of land have different areas and are represented by different Khasra numbers." Therefore, a finding regarding the defendant's possession or construction on one plot of land could not be exported to serve as evidence or res judicata for a different plot of land involved in the current litigation.

In conclusion, the High Court found no merit in the appeal as the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on a correct appreciation of the law and facts. The Court affirmed that the plaintiff remained the owner-in-possession and the challenged revenue order was non-est in the eyes of the law.

Date of Decision: 25 May 2026