2025:HHC:25478-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1337 of 2017 a/w CWP No.1338 of 2017 Reserved on: 09.07.2025 Decided on: 31.07.2025 CWP No.1337 of 2017 Shri Ram Singh & others … Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents CWP No.1338 of 2017 Shri Shashi Kumar & others … Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with M/s Sakshi Muskan and Anita, Advocates, in both the petitions. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, in both the petitions. M/s Y.P. Sood and Praveen Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2, in both the petitions. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Both these petitions arise out of the same order, dated 22.04.2017 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Court of learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), in Revision Petitions No.07 of 2015( in CWP No.1338 of 2017) and Revision Petition No.08 of 2015 (in CWP 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:25478-DB No.1337 of 2017), the same are being disposed of vide common judgment. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of these petitions are that vide order dated 22.04.2017 (Annexure P-4), learned Financial Commissioner disposed of the revision petition by passing the following order:- “5. I have heard the Id counsel for the contesting respondent and he gone through the written arguments filed by the Ld. counsel petitioners. Ld. counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no proper opportunity was granted to the petitioners before passing order and 16.10.2012. Ld. counsel has drawn the attention toward sub-para (1) order dated 16.10.2012 of the Settlement Collector, and argued that the id Settlement Collector has ordered to delete khasra no 205/1 measuring 0-00-60 hect. from khata no. 14/20 owned by Shri Joginder Lal and included in khata no 37/56 owned by Smt. Bhuti & Ors, but this khasra number was never a subject matter of the correction applied for. Meaning thereby the land of Shri Joginder Lal has been reduced and given to Smt. Bhuti & Ors, without even summoning and impleading them as necessary parties as such no one can be condemned unheard Further that after correct the Settlement Collector, has given an area measuring 631 sq. mtrs. (1 13kanal) to Smt. Kamla Devi, which has caused loss to the others. Further. that prior to settlement. Shri Shashi Kumar and others were owner of 14 kanals land which becomes 1-48-59 hect, but after settlement, they 3 2025:HHC:25478-DB have given 1-48-51 hect. (causing, a loss of 8 sq mtrs.) which has further been reduced by 300 sq mtrs, by allowing the correction which has further resulted in a net loss of 308 sq mtrs. i.e. 16 marlas to them. Similarly, the land of Shri Barkat Ali comprised in khasra no 210 has been reduced by 46 sq mtrs. and this area has been given to Smt. Kamla Devi where in lieu of this loss only 30 sq.mtrs. has been given to him out of khasra No. 231, which is courtyard of Smt. Kamla Devi. Further that khasra No. 63 was a public path, but it has been converted to a private land and path has been carved out of the land comprising in khasra no. 216 of Shri Ram Singh just to give undue benefit to Smt. Kamla Devi It has further been added that the lower courts have passed the orders solely on the basis of report of ASO without applying their own mind and without hearing the petitioners. It has further been alleged that the reports of field agencies dated 30.8.2008 and 18.3.2009, which were acceptable to all the parties have not been taken into consideration. In support of above contentions, Id. counsel has cited the case law [Jagat Ram Vs Udham Singh, Latest HLJ, 2007(HP), 381] and [Promila Devi Vs Raji Kumar & Ors, Latest HLJ, 2014(HP), 1399] 6. Per contra, Id. counsel for the respondent argued that on remand of case from the ld. Commissioner, the physical verification was again made by the Tehsildar(Settlement) and ASO. Ld. counsel averred that the dispute was qua correction of land owned by the respondent and nothing has to be done with the land of petitioners. The Id. Settlement Collector has not committed any illegality by 4 2025:HHC:25478-DB allowing the necessary correction on the basis of report of ASO, which has been further scrutinized by the id Commissioner in appeals and has been upheld. Hence, the revision petition deserves to be rejected. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsels for both the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the Courts below. The main grievance of the petitioners is that orders of the Settlement Collector, are totally based on the report of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kangra and the reports dated 30.8.2008 and 18 3 2009 of the Tehsildar, which are acceptable to them, have been ignored without any reasons and further that the orders have been passed without providing proper opportunity to the parties. From the perusal of the record of the trial courts, it is clear that the correction application has been decided by the Settlement Collector, on the basis of field inspection report conducted by the Assistant Settlement Offices. Kangra 25.5.1990 doubt on remand the Settlement Collector Kangraha DeAINT quired into through the Tehsildar Settlement, but the Settlem Collector, has rejected the reports of the Tehsildars stating that the same ate not based on old map (Shaita Sabik). Hence, the plea of the petitioners that the Settlement Collector has rejected the reports of the Tehsildar without assigning any reason is not acceptable. Further the Settlement Collector, has found that the report of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kangra is based on an old map and the spot position and as such the Ld. Settlement Collector, has accepted the same and ordered correction on the basis of said report. Further, the 5 2025:HHC:25478-DB record of trial court clearly shows that the interested parties have been given proper opportunities of being heard, by the Settlement Collector, Kangra before passing the final orders Hence, there is no illegality or irregularity in the orders of the Settlement Collector, Kangra, as has been alleged by the petitioners. 8. In view of above observations, I find no illegality or illegality in the order of the Ld. dated 16.10.2012, passed by the Id. Settlement Collector Kangra in case No. 91/98/5.0. and orders dated 23.12.2014, passed by the Ld. Commissioner, Mandi Division, in Case No. 06/2013 and 05/2013 and as such the aforesaid orders are hereby upheld. Accordingly, the present revision petitions are dismissed being devoid of any merit. 9. Order be communicated to the parties. The record of the courts below be returned and the file be consigned to the record room after due completion.” 3. Feeling aggrieved, these two petitions were filed by the revision petitioners. 4. When this matter was listed before the Court on 23.09.2019, the following order was passed:- “Learned Counsel for the parties are ad idem that dispute between the parties can be put to an end in case Settlement Officer, Kangra, is directed to reconsider the correction application, ie. Annexure P-1 appended with CWP No. 1337 of 2017, which has resulted in the issuance of the impugned order Annexure P-2, by carrying out a measurement of the properties of the parties herein, subject matter of the present petitions, by 6 2025:HHC:25478-DB comparing the same with old as well as new Sajra. Ordered accordingly. Settlement Officer, Kangra, is directed to carry out fresh measurement of the properties of the parties herein keeping in view correction application Annexure P-1, after hearing all the parties and after comprising the old Sajra with new Sajra. The measurement be carried out within a period of eight weeks from today. For the said purpose, at the first instance, parties, either in person or through their respective Counsel, shall appear before Settlement Officer, Kangra, on 14.10.2019 and thereafter, on a date which shall be fixed by the Officer concerned to do the needful. List on 27.11.2019, by which date, Settlement Officer, Kangra, shall submit his report to the Court Copy dasti.” 5. Pursuant thereto, fresh measurements of the property of the parties were carried out by the Settlement Officer in light of the contents of correction application appended as Annexure P-1, with CWP No.1337 of 2017who has furnished his report. The petitioners expressed their satisfaction with the report filed, whereas private respondents prayed for and were permitted to file objections thereto, which are on record. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the report of the Settlement Collector that was submitted pursuant to the directions of the Court by carrying out the measurement of the property of the parties. 7 2025:HHC:25478-DB 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners whereas submitted that the petitions be now disposed by modifying the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner and by ordering that the parties shall abide by the report of the Settlement Officer which be incorporated in the revenue record, learned Counsel for the respondents objected to the said report on the ground that the Settlement Officer while preparing the report did not take into consideration the new Sazra despite the fact that the same was available and the inspection was carried out on the basis of old Sazra only. On this plea, a prayer was made for setting aside of the Settlement report. No other point was urged. 8. A perusal of Inspection Report, which is on record demonstrates that the measurements were carried out by the Authorities by taking into consideration the old Sazra as well as the new Sazra. This is evident from Paras-6 and 7 of the report in Vernacular prepaid by the Settlement Officer. Besides this, a perusal of the fresh measurements undertaken by the Settlement Officer demonstrates that everything was taken into consideration in detail by the said Officer and the report was submitted after correcting infirmities which were existing in the old report, which was not in conformity with the spot position. 9. In light of the fact that the Settlement Officer, in compliance with the directions passed by this Court undertook a 8 2025:HHC:25478-DB detailed exercise of measurement of the property and a detailed report in this regard has been filed by the said Authority, which inspires confidence and could not be demonstrated to be perverse by the private respondents, because their contention that the report was prepared only by taking into consideration the old Sazra and not the new Sazra, is apparently incorrect because the report has been prepared by taking into consideration both the Sazras, these petitions are disposed of by modifying the impugned orders passed by the learned Financial Commissioner by directing that let revenue entries be now corrected with regard to the properties of the petitioners and the private respondents in terms of the report of the Settlement Officer, which is accepted as it is and the objections filed against which are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 31, 2025 (Rishi)