IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 599 of 2009 Decided on: 06.07.2011 Jagdish Chand & others …Petitioners. Versus The Financial Commissioner & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashisth, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Ms. Kiranlata Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 to 10. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioners by means of this petition have challenged the order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 19.12.2006, whereby the Financial Commissioner has accepted the recommendations of the Collector, Sub Division Barsar. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the land in dispute, which measures about 12 marlas, is admittedly Shamlat land. According to the private respondents No. 4 to 10, 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? -: 2 :- their predecessor in interest Shri Gurditta was in possession of the said Shamlat land and this land was transferred in the name of the State Government vide mutation attested on 25.12.1975. 3. The sons of Shri Gurditta filed an application on 18th February, 1999 claiming that the land had wrongly been entered in the name of the State Government, that too without notice to them. The Collector accepted the version given in the application by the sons of Gurditta and made a recommendation that the revenue entries be corrected and the land be shown to be the Shamlat land and the possession be shown in the name of the heirs of Gurditta. This recommendation was accepted by the Financial Commissioner on 19.12.2006. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that thereafter the private respondents got the land mutated in their favour and the land which was entered as khalwara and was being used by all the villagers is now not being permitted to be used for the said purpose. Thus, the basic dispute is whether the petitioners have a right to use the land in dispute as khalwara or not. This is a question which cannot be decided in the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the petitioners' remedy lies in filing a civil suit where they may allege and prove that they were using this land as khalwara prior to the passing of the orders of the Financial Commissioner and have a right to continue to use the same thereafter also. -: 3 :- 5. Therefore, the petition is rejected with liberty reserved to the petitioners to file a civil suit to establish their right. Needless to say, the petitioners will be at liberty to establish their right in accordance with law and can take all grounds available to them including the grounds raised in this petition including the plea that the Financial Commissioner should not have changed the entries after such a long period. 6. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge July 6, 2011 (rajni)