The judgment emphasizes the limitations of revisional powers, the doctrine of delay and laches, and the need for timely seeking relief through the appropriate legal channels.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

This LPA is directed against judgment and order, dated 10th October, 2007, made by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 992 of 2003, titled as Smt. Subhadra Devi and ors. versus State of H.P. and another, whereby the writ petition filed by writ petitioners-respondents No. 1 to 4 herein came to be allowed and order, dated 8th October, 2003, made by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) was quashed (for short “the impugned judgment”).

2. The case in hand has a chequered history, is two decades old and the parties are still litigating, is suggestive of the fact that delay has crept-in in taking the lis to its logical conclusion, which has adversely affected the parties.

3. It is beaten law of the land that delay takes away the settings of law. Thus, it is the duty of all concerned to see that the cases are decided as early as possible.

4. The way this case has been dealt with right from the year 1987 till filing of the writ petition is also a glaring example as to how the people are suffering, that too, for trivial issues.

5. It is necessary to notice the brief facts of the case herein.

6. Shri Charan Dass, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, i.e. writ respondent No. 2 (since deceased, now represented through his legal heirs/representatives) purchased the land vide two registered sale deeds, dated 23rd September, 1969. Mutation No. 542 to this effect was attested on 20th April, 1970. At the time of recording the mutation proceedings, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-writ respondent No. 2 was present, had not raised any finger qua recording of mutation and was satisfied till 31st January, 1987, when he filed an application before the Settlement Officer, Kangra for correction of the entries in the revenue record.

7. In the said application, it was averred that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-writ respondent No. 2 had purchased 3 kanals 1 marla land out of 7 kanals 10 marlas land comprised in khasra No. 732 min vide registered sale deed, dated 23rd September, 1969, from one Shri Chuhru, was given possession towards the path side, but some mischievous elements had got recorded his possession on the other side and had prayed for correction of the entries.

8. The Settlement Officer, Kangra, transferred the said application to Tehsildar (Settlement), Una. The inquiry was conducted by the Settlement Naib Tehsildar, who submitted the report on 8th October, 1987. After perusing the said report, the Tehsildar (Settlement) rejected the application filed by the appellant-writ respondent No. 2.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-writ respondent No. 2 questioned the same by the medium of appeal before the Settlement Collector, Kangra, who accepted the appeal vide order, dated 22nd January, 1991, and remanded the case to the Tehsildar (Settlement). The Tehsildar (Settlement) heard the parties, inquired into the matter and again rejected the application vide order, dated 31st January, 1992.

10. Dissatisfied with order, dated 31st January, 1992, made by the Tehsildar (Settlement), the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-writ respondent No. 2 filed appeal before the Settlement Collector, Kangra, who, vide order, dated 18th June, 2003, dismissed the appeal with the observations that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-writ respondent No. 2 had to assail the mutation before the competent court of jurisdiction, which he had not done, thus, the correction of entry relating to possession, as sought for, could not be made in the revenue record.

11. The said order of Settlement Collector was then questioned by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-writ respondent No. 2 before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division by the medium of revision petition, was dismissed vide order, dated 15th January, 1998. The Divisional Commissioner has given the minute details of the facts of the case and history behind it. It has specifica