IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5827 of 2026 Decided on: 03.06.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ramjani and Ors …..Petitioners Versus The State of H.P. and Ors ....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitionesr: Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Nemo for respondent No.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioners feel aggrieved against order dated 03.08.2024, passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh, allowing the Revision Petition preferred by respondent No.3 and thereby dismissing the application moved by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, seeking correction of Tatima of a specific khasra number. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. Heard and considered the case file. 2(i) Sh. Jeet Ram son of late Sh. Saryau Ram (predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners) moved an application on 08.06.2016 before the Assistant Collector First Grade Sundernagar, District Mandi, seeking correction of Tatima of land bearing Khata Khatauni No. 141/147, Khasra No. 524/219 situated at Mohal Kangu, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. Applicant (Jeet Ram) claimed that his father Sh. Sayaru had sold a piece of land measuring 00-14-02 bighas out of Khasra No. 219, measuring 32-00-04 bighas, vide sale deed No. 102 dated 15.02.1990 to respondent No.3-Sh. Fangu Ram. The land parcel sold to respondent No.3 was allotted Khasra No. 219/1 measuring 00-14-02 bighas in the Tatima prepared for the same. Mutation No. 280 was attested to this an effect on 25.05.1990. 2(ii) Sh. Jeet Ram claimed that during demarcation of the land comprising of Khasra No. 523/219 on 16.06.2015, he became aware of incorrect preparation of Tatima of the land sold to respondent No.3 comprised in Khasra No. 523/219. That area of Tatima of land sold had been wrongly calculated therein. Though the area of Khasra No. 523/219 was correctly recorded, but the area of 3 Khasra No. 219/1 in Mutation No. 280 dated 25.05.1990 had been wrongly calculated. In this manner the Tatima reflected respondent No.3 to be owner in possession of area measuring 00-18-05 bighas instated of 00-14-02 bighas that was sold to him. 2(iii) The Assistant Collector First Grade Sundernagar allowed the application on 17.04.2017. While allowing the application, a report received from the Field Revenue Agency was taken into consideration, which was to the effect that there appeared difference between the dimensions and area calculated in the Tatima of Khasra No. 219/1 prepared on the overleaf of Mutation No. 290 dated 25.05.1990. 2(iv) Respondent No.3’s appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade on 17.04.2017 was dismissed by the Collector, Sub Division Sundernagar, District Mandi on 14.06.2018. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.3 preferred Revision Petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, who vide his order dated 02.01.2020, recommended acceptance of the revision petition. The recommendations of the Divisional Commissioner were accepted by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) H.P. on 03.08.2024 giving 4 occasion to the petitioner to assail the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) H.P. in this writ petition filed almost two years after the passing of impugned order. 3. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) H.P. has justly accepted the recommendations made by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi:- The Tatima was prepared and Mutation was attested on 25.05.1990 pursuant to the sale deed executed on 15.02.1990. Application for correction of Tarima overleaf the mutation was made by the predecessor of the present petitioners Sh. Jeet Ram on 08.06.2016, more than 26 years after the accrual of cause of action. The executant of sale deed Sh. Sayaru, during his life time, did not seek any correction in the Tatima. In this interregnum of more than 26 years, respondent No.3 raised three residential houses, one cowshed, two bathrooms, two latrines etc. over the suit land. The mutation No. 280 so attested on 25.05.1990 alongwith its Tatima on the strength of registered sale deed dated 15.02.1990, has been incorporated in the revenue record. The original mutation/file has been consigned into the record room. The entries have been repeatedly incorporated in the subsequent revenue record as well. Presumption of truth is attached to these entries. Therefore, 5 correction application, moved after 26 long years of execution of the sale deed, by the son of the original vendor, could not have been entertained at such a belated stage. Further, respondent No.3 in his Revision Petition had pleaded there being no error in the Tatima prepared at the time of attestation of Mutation on 25.05.1990. On facts, the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) had also made observations that while allowing the application for correction of Tatima the Assistant Collector First Grade, had not only calculated the area of the land but had changed Karukans of the Tatima; Tatima was prepared in the mutation on the basis of sale deed, there was nothing on record to suggest any variation existing in the Tatima prepared on the mutation from the one that was attached with the sale deed. Revenue Officers/Revenue Courts have no power to change such long standing entries and Tatima in exercise of summary powers under Sections 37 and 38 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, more so, when the correction sought for, is being contested on facts and correction is not proved/admitted. 6 4. In view of above, no case for interference with the impugned order dated 03.08.2024 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 3, 2026 Judge R.Atal