Dev Darshan Sud, J.

1. The Petitioner herein, Nagender Singh, successor-in-interest of Shri Chain Singh, challenges the order dated 23.1.2007, (Annexure P-11) passed by the Financial Commissioner, directing the review of mutations No. 4437, 4438, 4439, 4440 and 4441 dated 21.9.1987 by the Collector, Una in Ceiling Case No. 535 of 1974 on the ground that they have been wrongly incorporated in the revenue record. The order has been passed on the revision instituted by Devinder Singh, son of Shri Laxman Singh, on the ground that he is brother of Chain Singh, who jointly owns land, as detailed in the petition. The Financial Commissioner holds that prima-facie it is because of the erroneous attestation of mutations that the order dated 9.9.1975 (Annexure P-2) has not been properly given effect in the revenue records.

2. The case of the Petitioner herein is that in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), Shri Chain Singh was allowed to retain the land as directed in that order. Subsequently, this order was challenged before the Settlement Officer, District Una by S/Sh. Devender Singh, Rajender Singh, Surinder Singh, Virender Singh and Narender Singh, sons of Shri Hardev Singh, claiming therein that the mutations as sanctioned therein, namely, the ones as detailed in this writ petition, had not been properly incorporated in the revenue record. The appeal was rejected by the Settlement Officer holding that the Revenue Officer had only given effect to the partition as ordered by the Collector on 9.9.1975. This appeal had been preferred by Respondent No. 2 herein. It is undisputed before me that after this appeal, which was dismissed on 29.8.1995 (Annexure P-4), no further appeal or proceedings were taken. Be stated that this appeal was time barred. It seems that the parties thereafter had also litigated before the Civil Court. The suit instituted by Devinder Singh" and others was dismissed holding that it is the Revenue Court which" has revisional jurisdiction to try the case, which order was affirmed by the Supreme Court (Annexure P-6). Thereafter revision petition under Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act was preferred by the applicant therein Devinder Singh challenging the mutations sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner herein, namely, mutations No. 4437, 4438, 4439, 4440 and 4441. Another prayer was made that the allotment of land made in favour of the Respondent in this writ petition (Petitioner before the Financial Commissioner) may be implemented in letter and spirit. It is on this that the Financial Commissioner has passed the order (Annexure P-11), which has been challenged by way of the present writ petition on a number of grounds including the ground of limitation, which was urged before the Financial Commissioner and it has not been considered.

3. The Financial Commissioner has disposed of the petition only with the observation that correction is being made purportedly on some errors, which have been pointed out and which would not affect the right of any party, but would implement the orders passed.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that there was no jurisdiction vested in the Financial Commissioner to entertain the revision petition. He submits that the powers under Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act are fettered by limitation i.e. to say that such powers should be invoked within a reasonable time and not at any time. Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act reads as under:

17. Power to call for, examine and revise proceedings of Revenue Officers.--(1) The Financial Commissioner may at any time call for the record of any case pending before (or disposed of by) any Revenue Officer subordinate to him.

(2) A Commissioner or Collector may call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue Officer under his control.

(3) If any case in which