IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP.-No.901 of 2009. Date of Decision:23.7.2009. _________________________________________________________ Gurdial Singh. …..Petitioner. Versus Financial Commissioner and others …Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? For the petitioner: :Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents 1to4: Mr.R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For respondent 5. : Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. __________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J(Oral): Heard. The petitioner sought the correction of revenue entry with respect to Khasra Nos. 2168 and 2195 (old) by moving an application before the Tehsildar Settlement on the ground that he had constructed a house over 5 marlas of land of Khasra No. 2168 and 5 marlas of land of Khasra No.2195 and the name of his father Piara Singh respondent was wrongly recorded in the column of possession. His application Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes . 2 was allowed vide order dated 11.1.1999 holding that Khasra Nos. 3068, 3070, 3075 total 3 measuring 87.36 Sq.Dec. metres carved out from the old Khasra No. 2195 and Khasra No.3071/1, 3075/1 and 3076 total 3 measuring 104-35 Sq.Dec. metres carved out of old Khasra No. 2168 in the possession of the petitioner without status. Respondent herein, Piara Singh unsuccessfully assailed the order before the Settlement Officer. Thereafter, he went in revision before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra who after examining the record recommended it to the Financial Commissioner for setting aside the orders of revenue officers below. The recommendations were accepted in the revision petition by the F.C. (Appeals) vide his detailed order passed on 5.12.2008 which are impugned. On the perusal of record we find that Khasra Nos. 3068 and 3070 (old Khasra No.2195) were mutated in favour of respondent Piara Singh vide mutation No. 235 dated 25.3.1988, in compliance to the orders passed by the Settlement Officer on 17.7.1987 which were never challenged before any competent authority. The entries of Khasra No. 2168 (old) stood incorporated in the Jamabandi for the year 1976-77 in the ownership and possession of Piara Singh. In these circumstances, the Tehsildar (A.C.Ist Grade) Settlement could not have ordered the change/correction with respect to Khasra No. 3068 and 3070 (old khasra No.2195) in a summary way. 3 Further the petitioner cannot capitalize anything from the judgment dated 19.4.1976 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Una in Civil Suit No. 65 of 1974 filed by one Harnam Singh against Piara Singh, Gurdial Singh and others as it relates to only Khasra No. 2168 (old) which was held to be in the possession of respondent Piara Singh and his son petitioner-Gurdial Singh who had constructed a house with the permission of his father Piara Singh but it did not include old Khasra No. 2195 whereas it appears that the construction of the house is partly on Khasra No. 2168 and partly on 2195 and some area is vacant. Since the part of the land in question was acquired by Piara Singh vide order of the competent superior revenue officer and a part of the land was acquired by him in exchange from the other land owners. Thus the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade was rightly held by the F.C.(Appeals) to have committed irregularity in ordering the petitioner to record him in the column of possession, in a summary way. More specifically when respondent Piara Singh has instituted a Civil Suit on 7.5.2008 in the court of Civil Judge against petitioner Gurdial Singh for the relief of mandatory injunction and to hand over the vacant possession of the house as it being his property and the petitioner in his written statement (Annexure:P-7) has claimed his adverse possession. Since the claims of both the parties are highly contested the equities are in favour of the respondent Piara 4 Singh. Therefore, we do not find any error in the impugned order of F.C.(Appeals) as the rights to the parties are likely to be determined by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent may sell off the house/land in question can be suitably safeguarded by the civil court by appropriate application if moved in the pending suit but we are unable to pass any prohibitory orders in this petition. Therefore, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. CMP.Nos.1598/09 & 1599/09. Infructuous. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (Surinder Singh), Judge. July 23,2009(R)