The Land Reforms Officer lacks jurisdiction to alter long-standing revenue records without legal justification, and disputes should be resolved based on actual possession.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

1. By way of this writ petition, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners assailed order dated 14.11.2001, passed by the learned Financial Commissioner on the recommendations made by the learned Divisional Commissioner, in terms whereof, learned Divisional Commissioner recommended the acceptance of the revision filed before it and the remand of the matter back to the Tehsildar by setting aside the order passed by the Land Reforms Officer dated 08.08.1996.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that one Saran Dass presented an application on 18.05.1991 before Assistant Collector 1st Grade Nadaun, in terms whereof, a prayer was made that necessary correction be carried out in the revenue entries in Khasra Girdawari in respect of land comprised in Khata No.39 min Khatauni No.44, Khasra No.76 measuring 39 Kanals 02 Marlas, as entered in Jamabandi for the years 1985-86, situated in village Doligharana, Tappa Kohla, Tehsil Nadaun on the ground that he was in sole cultivating possession of the said land from the time of his ancestors as tenant, paying rent to the Raja of Nadaun. As per Saran Dass, the Settlement Operation of the area st commenced in the meantime and Assistant Collector 1 Grade Nadaun vide order dated 16.07.1992 sent the file to Assistant st Collector 1 Grade Settlement for further action.

3. The application of Saran Dass was rejected by st Assistant Collector Settlement 1 Grade/Land Reforms Officer on 09.09.1993. Feeling aggrieved, Saran Dass preferred an appeal before Settlement Collector, in which, he took the ground that as he was the only non-occupancy tenant under Raja Maheshwar Chand paying rent and the other party had no concern with the impugned land, therefore, as per law, he had become owner of the land. It was further his contention that as on the date when his application was dismissed by Land Reforms Officer, the matter was listed for recording his evidence, but the order stood passed at his back.

4. Settlement Collector set aside order dated 09.09.1993 passed by Assistant Collector vide order dated 09.02.1994 and remanded the case back to Assistant Collector 1stGrade for deciding the same on merit.

5. Thereafter, Assistant Collector passed a fresh order on 08.08.1996 and ordered that Saran Dass be recorded in possession as non-occupancy tenant on Khasra No.76 to the extent of 587 shares and Sarju Ram etc., to the extent of 143 shares under the ownership of State of Himachal Pradesh.

6. This order was assailed by Sarju Ram and two others by way of an appeal before the Settlement Collector Kangra.

7. The primary grounds of challenge were that in terms of their possession on the spot, they were entitled to 243 shares instead of 143 shares and Saran Dass was entitled to487 shares instead of 587 shares.

8. Settlement Collector after hearing the parties rejected the appeal on 30.05.1998 as barred by limitation.

9. Said order was challenged by the aggrieved party by way of a Revision Petition before Divisional Commissioner Mandi on the ground that they were condemned unheard and they were not associated in the proceeding, more so, in light of the fact that they were entitled to 1½ share of the property and the other party was entitled to 1/2 share instead of 2/3rd share.

10. Learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi after hearing both the parties observed that Settlement Collector had failed to explain in the decision, the findings arrived at by him and, therefore, the matter required fresh inquiry. Learned Divisional Commissioner recommended the case to the learned Financial Commissioner for passing appropriate orders.

11. Learned Financial Commissioner has disposed of the recommendations made by the learned Divisional Commissioner in the following terms:-

“After thoughtful considerations to the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and perusal of the records available on the case file, it appears that the present entries reflecting both the parties as n