This is a revision petition u/s 17 of the HP Land Revenue Act against the order of the Commissioner, Shimla Division, dated 2.1.2009 appeal No. 96/2007.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Settlement Officer, Shimla had allowed the application of respondent no. 1 for correction of revenue entries vide orders dated 7.2.2005 and accordingly corrections had been made in the revenue records. The petitioner had thereupon preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Shimla Division which was dismissed; hence this revision petition.

3. Notices had been issued for the respondents no. 1 and 2 but were not effected. Notice was also published in a newspaper but these respondents did not put in appearance. Hence they were proceeded ex. parle.

4. The matter was argued by learned counsel of the petitioner and respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the application of the respondent No. 1 to the Settlement Officer was allowed within 26 days, which is unusual. The present petitioner was not called and was thus not heard, but his land was reduced. Learned counsel stated that in her application, the respondent no. 1 had alleged that her land had been reduced but the consequence of her correction application was that the petitioner's land got reduced. Learned counsel read from the Commissioner's report and stated that the Commissioner has not given any reasoning for her order. According to learned counsel, before reducing the petitioner's land, the Settlement Officer has to give valid reasoning. According to learned counsel, the land of those whose land was already in excess has not been touched/ 384 reduced.

5. Learned counsel also drew attention to the fact that it is not possible to send the summons, received back the summons duly served, hear arguments and thereafter pass orders within 26 days. This shows extraordinary speed and how the matter was expedited to benefit the respondent. Learned counsel stated that the petitioner prays that the original land of the petitioner should be restored.

6. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 stated that the revisionist had filed the appeal against the Settlement Officer's order. One objection of the petitioner was that an Assistant Collector Grade II does not have powers to demarcate land abutting Government land. In this regard, learned counsel drew attention to revenue Department notification dated 24.4.1977 by which the powers of demarcation only to Assistant Collector Grade 1 was withdrawn and thus the Assistant Collector (hade 11 was competent to give demarcation in the instant case. Secondly the present petitioner did not take objection at the time of demarcation. As per learned counsel, full opportunity had been given to the petitioner and this is no stage to raise new objections.

7. in rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that the Assistant Collector Grade II can give demarcation, even then the petitioner has to be given an opportunity of being heard. The respondent 8mt. Suman Jain has nowhere claimed that the petitioner has encroached upon her land. Both the lower courts have found that the land of the petitioner has been reduced. Learned counsel stated that the authorities have recorded that the petitioner has 23.8 sq. meters less land whereas the land of other persons has increased. According to learned counsel, the State cannot reduce the land of one and give it to another. Learned counsel again drew attention to the haste which the correction application had been decided; such haste is not seen else where. The petitioner was not even called; the petitioner has to be given reasonable time to put forth his case.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the record of the courts below. The Tej Bhan Bhaskar v. Suman Jain & Ors. 385 first objection of the petitioner is that the application before the Settlement Officer was allowed within 26 days, which