IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition No.735 of 2006. Reserved on: 2.1.2009. Decided on: 9.1.2009. __________________________________________________ Shri Om Parkash … Petitioner. Versus The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. For Respondent No. 2 to 4. : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner had purchased land measuring 0-11 Marlas out of Khasra No. 485. He had constructed house over this land. The mutation was attested on 22.3.1983. The predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 2 to 4 had filed an application for partition of the land in dispute. During partition proceedings he came to know that the settlement authority had wrongly prepared the settlement record and the East side of the land was mentioned 25 meters in place of 28 meters. He applied for correction of the revenue record. The revenue record was corrected by the revenue authorities on 25.3.2000. The land was recorded as 28 meters on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 the East in place of 25 meters in length. The order was implemented and the entries were made in the Jamabandi. Mr. Anup Rattan has strenuously argued that the orders passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) are not sustainable. Ld. Senior Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate have supported the impugned order. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. The partition order was passed by the competent authority on 18.2.1998 by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Amb. The petitioner assailed the order before the Collector, Sub Division, Amb by filing an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Collector, Sub Division, Amb on 31.1.2002. He preferred revision before the learned Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Una against the order dated 31.1.2002. The revision was dismissed by the learned Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Una on 29.1.2003. He filed revision before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) against order dated 29.1.2003. The revision was dismissed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 11.7.2006. Mr. Anup Rattan has strenuously argued that the partition proceedings had taken place on the basis of wrong entries made during the consolidation/settlement operations. The partition order was passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Amb on 18.2.1998. There is a detailed procedure prescribed under the H.P. Land Revenue Act and the instructions issued the manner in which the partition has to take place. However, the fact of the matter is 3 that the petitioner had moved an application for correction of revenue records. The same was directed to be corrected by the competent authority on 25.3.2000. This position was also reflected in the Jamabandi Ext. P-1. As per the correction carried out vide order dated 25.3.2000, the land was recorded as 28 meters on the East in place of 25 meters in length. The petitioner has brought this order to the notice of the Collector, Sub Division, Amb during the hearing of his appeal against the order dated 18.2.1998. The learned Collector, Sub Division, Amb though has taken note of the correction made by the Settlement Officer on 25.3.2000, however, he has not interfered with the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Amb on 18.2.1998. Once the entries have been changed by the Settlement Officer on 25.3.2000, the same were required to be looked into by the Collector, Sub Division, Amb. He has ignored to consider the correction made in the revenue records only on the ground that these were ordered by the Settlement Officer during the pendency of the case. The petitioner had constructed his house on the area in question. This question has also been over looked by the Collector, Sub Division, Amb. At the time when the partition proceedings were going on before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Amb, necessary corrections were not carried out in the revenue record. This has been done only on 25.3.2000. The Collector, Una had refused to interfere with the order passed by the Collector, Sub Division, Amb on the ground that the petitioner should have challenged the mode of partition through an appeal. The petitioner could not take this plea during the course of partition for the simple reason that by that time the correction had not been carried out. The partition order is dated 4 18.2.1998 and the corrections have been carried out on 25.3.2000. The same reasoning has been adopted by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in the order dated 11.7.2006. Accordingly, it is held on the basis of above analysis and observations that the authorities have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them. Once the subsequent development has been brought to the notice on the basis of revenue entry on 25.3.2000, the same should have been taken into consideration by the authorities. If the authorities had taken into consideration the corrections carried out in the revenue record on 25.3.2000, further litigation could be avoided. The authorities should be flexible enough to take into consideration subsequent developments which are brought to their notice on the basis of orders passed by the other statutory authorities. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 11.7.2006 is quashed and set aside. He is directed to re-hear the parties afresh in view of the observations made hereinabove. The parties are directed through their counsel to appear before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on January 27, 2009. The learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) shall decide the revision within a period of three months. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. January 9, 2009. (cr)