IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4650 of 2010 Decided on : 01.03.2.2011 Mohinder Singh and others ..… Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioners : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No.4. V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petitioners are aggrieved by rejection of their prayer for effecting correction in the revenue entries by the Settlement Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala, vide his order dated 21.5.1998, Annexure P-3, as upheld in appeal by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division at Dharamshala, vide order dated 6.2.2007, Annexure P-4 and the Financial Commissioner 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, in revision vide order dated 25.5.2010, Annexure P-5. 2. Precisely, the contention of the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners late Shri Amar Singh was that he was owner of land bearing khasra Nos. 630, 638 and 639, situate in village Nari, Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una, which adjoins khasra No. 640. According to him, a part of the land belonging to him has been merged in khasra No. 640 during settlement operations owing to wrong measurement. In such circumstances, he prayed for correction of ‘karukarans’ as per actual position at the spot. 3. On receipt of the application for correction of revenue entries , it was made over by the Settlement Collector to the Naib Tehsildar, Revenue Circle, Amb, for enquiry and report. Accordingly, the said Naib Tehsildar, visited the spot, carried out measurement of the lands in question and submitted his report. According to him, new khasra Nos. 1506, 1507, 1508, 1510 and 1511, plots 5, measuring 0-07-17 Hects, have been carved out of Khasra Nos. 630, 637 and 639, measuring 1-17 kanals, belonging to late Shri Amar Singh, correctly. However, he found minor difference in the old and new ‘mussavis’, which could not be corrected. It was further reported that the classification of khasra No. 1522 new, which has been carved out of the aforesaid old khasra No. 640, has been wrongly recorded during current settlement as ‘gair mumkin rasta’, whereas, on the spot, there is no path in 3 existence and instead it is a built up area and a house is in existence on the spot. It was lastly concluded that a substantial portion of khasra No. 1522 has been carved out of old khasra No. 640 and only a negligible portion of khasra Nos. 638 and 639 belonging to late Shri Amar Singh has been included therein and has since been constructed upon. It is not feasible to show the same in new ‘mussavi’, as it would be against the settlement instructions. 5. In view of the above, when the concerned revenue authorities have considered the entire matter in the right perspective and the challenge laid by the petitioners has failed upto the court of the Financial Commissioner and in the absence of any materials to take a contrary view, I am satisfied that no case is made out for any interference by this Court with the impugned order dated 25.5.2010, Annexure P-5, in exercise of its powers of judicial review. 6. In result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 7. The petition as also pending CMPs, if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 1st March, 2011. Lsp*