IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No.1372 of 2006 Date of decision: 24.3.2008. Sita Ram ….. Petitioners -Versus- State of H.P. and others …. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioners: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate For Respondents 1&2: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) The present petitioners filed an application dated 19.12.1997 before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Settlement Circle, Nadaun, District Hamirpur praying for correction of revenue entries. The relevant averments made in the application read as follows: “That the land comprised in Khata No.143 min Khatauni No.156 measuring 7 K 2 M situated in Tika Maslana Kalan mauza Giaragran, Tehsil Barsar, Distt.Hamirpur (H.P) as per Jamabandi for the year 1991- 92 was earlier “Shamlat Tika Hasb Rasad Khewat”, assessed to land revenue and is under the possession of applicants to the extent of ½ (half) share since the time of ancestors/predecessor-in/interest as showing in the relevant jamabandis for the years 1924-25, 1928-29, 1940-41, copies of which are enclosed herewith and the same has wrongly been shown under the exclusive possession of Prabha Sabab 2 Kabjan in the column of possession in the Jamabandi for the year 1991- 92, 1983-84 and 1970-71.” The petitioners consequently prayed that the revenue entries be corrected and the name of the applicants and their predecessor-in- interest be entered in the column of possession. This application was rejected vide order dated 18.5.1999 and the petitioners were directed to approach the Civil Court to establish their title. In the aforesaid application Prabha in whose name the possession of the land was shown was respondent No.1. Instead of filing a civil suit the petitioners filed another application in the Court of Settlement Officer, Kangra. The heading of the application shows that it is an application for correction of revenue entries but they changed para 1 which now reads as follows: “1.That the land comprised in khasra No.143 min, khatauni No.156, Khasra No.115 measuring 7K-2M situated in Tika Maslana Kalan, Mauza Giara Gran, Tehsil Barsar, Distt.Hamirpur, H.P. as per Jamabandi for the year 1991-92 was earlier “Shamlat Tika Hazab Rasad Khewat”, assessed to land revenue and is under the cultivating possession of the applicants to the extent of ½ (half) share since the time of ancestors/predecessor-in-interest along with the analbiat land comprised in Khata No.93 Khatauni No.94, Khasra No.44, measuring 5K-13M as per jamabandi for the year 1991-92, and adjoining to the said shamlat land.” Neither Prabha nor his heirs were made party to this application and the prayer made was that the land be ordered to be reverted back to Shamlat tika in the column of ownership and under the column of possession of the applicants to the extent of half share 3 as co-sharers be recorded. The averments made in this application are totally contrary to the averments made in the previous application. Whereas in the earlier application the petitioners had stated that their names were not being reflected in the column of possession, in the new application they suggested that their names were reflected in the revenue record. One Sh.Gian Chand son of Prabha also filed an application for showing the land in their ownership and possession. The learned Settlement Collector held that since the land was assessed to land revenue the same could not have vested in the State and thereafter ordered that half of the land be shown in the possession of the petitioners. The respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Revenue) who allowed the same on the ground that since the previous application of the petitioners for correction of revenue entries had been rejected the fresh application could not have been entertained by the Settlement Officer. The order of the Settlement Collector was quashed. It has been strenuously contended by Sh.Ajay Sharma that the second application was very different from the earlier application. According to him in the first application the only prayer was for correction of revenue entries whereas in the second application the petitioners had challenged the vestment of the land itself. 4 We are not at all in agreement with this contention. In the earlier application the petitioners had claimed to be in cultivating possession of half of the land and had challenged the entries showing the entire land to be in exclusive possession of Prabha. In the second application without making Prabha or his heirs party to the application, the petitioners again prayed for a similar relief though in addition it was mentioned that the shamlat land had wrongly been vested in the State of H.P. Sh.Ajay Sharma has filed to point out to us any provision in the H.P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby the shamlat land assessed to land revenue is not liable to vest in the State Government. Further we are of the considered view that since the earlier application of the petitioners had been rejected the second application was not maintainable. It was lastly contended by Sh.Ajay Sharma that the Commissioner had no right to hear the appeal. This ground is also without any force. Under Section 9 of the Act an appeal from the order of the Collector lies to the State Government or an officer authorized by it by a notification. A notification has been issued by the State Government whereby the Divisional Commissioners were given the power of hearing appeal under Section 9 of the Act. For a short time the office of the Divisional Commissioner stood 5 abolished and the powers of the Divisional Commissioners were exercised by the Commissioner (Revenue). The Commissioner had definitely the jurisdiction to hear the case. In view of the above discussion we find no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge. March 24, 2008. ( Rajiv Sharma ), PV Judge.