This revision petition has been filed on 4.2.1994 under section 114(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 red with Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954. 2.Brief facts of the case are that on 23.6.1986, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Shimla attested Mutation No. 157 pertaining to land measuring 87-16 Bighas situated in mauza Saruella Baruella, Tehsil Shimla, District Shimla in favour of S/Shri Satpal andArun Kumar, the present respondent No.1 and predecessor in interest of the present respondents No. 2(i to iii), Like wise, Mutation No. 158 pertaining to land measuring 56-19 Bighas situated in the same village was also attested in favour of S/Shri Satpal and Arun Kumar. The Union Government filed an appeal under Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 against the attestation of the said mutations before the Collector, Shimla Sub Division who decided the same on 30.9.1993 holding that the appeal was time barred and also that the entries had been incorporated in the Jamabandi and hence, his jurisdiction was barred. The Collector however also held that the appellant was free to raise the matter before the court of competent jurisdiction.

3. The present petitioners have filed the petition along with an amended petition dated 31.12.1996 before this court on the grounds that the mutations No. 157 and 158 were attested behind their back and that the respondent No.1. and the predecessor in interest of the present respondent No. 2 (i to iii) have further sold part of the land to other respondents. It has been averred that the land in question was never transferred in favour of Shri Sardari Lal, the father of S/Shri Satpal and Arun Kumar by way of lease. There was no relationship of tenant and landlord between the owners and Shri Sardari Lal at the time of enforcement of the HP. Tenancy and land Reforms Act, 1972 and therefore the mutations regarding conferment of proprietary rights upon S/Shri Satpal and Arun Kumar were illegal. The petitioners have prayed for cancellation of the impugned mutations.

4. During the course of the proceedings, an issue of limitation was raised by and on behalf of the respondents before my Id. predecessor and it was contended that the limitation in the matter should start from the year 1975 when the respondents acquired proprietary rights over the land in dispute by coming into force of the Act ibid. It was also contended that opportunity was given to the Custodian Department to appear in the mutation proceedings but the Department chose to be absent there from. My learned predecessor dismissed the-plea raised on behalf of the respondents on 9.6.2000 by holding that the impugned order does not state on whom the summons were issued and whether any such summons were actually served upon any official in the Custodian Department. Therefore, it was further held, the Assistant Collector had no occasion to presume that the Custodian Department had no objection to conferment of proprietary rights on the tenants tot he tune of 145 bighas of Govt. Land/ Evacuee land. The delay in filing the revision petition was hence condoned by my Id. Predecessor on 9.6.2000. The respondents challenged the order of my Id. Predecessor before the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The Honble High Court was pleased to stay the proceedings in the revision petition pending before my Id. Predecessor vide an interim order passed in CMP No. 57 of 2000 on 12.7.2000. The Honble High Court was later pleased to dismiss the CMP No. 16 of 2000 filed by the respondents vide an order dated 31 st May 2000. The Honble High Court observed in the order that; "On consideration of the provisions section 65 of the Act wherein very vide words have been used "at any time....., it cannot be said that any period of reasonable time has to be read impliedly in the provision, especially when the statute is a welfare legislation. The jurisdiction which the Financial Commissioner exercises under Sec