ORDER

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure P-M) passed by District Collector, Shimla, H.P. in Misc. Case No.04/2019, titled Sh. Champeshwar Lal Sood & Anr. vs. State of H.P. & Anr., whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for correction of entry in the revenue record, came to be rejected, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid impugned order and direct aforesaid authority to consider the case of the petitioners for correction of revenue record, strictly in terms of direction issued by Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, in order dated

29.06.2017, passed in Revision Petition No. 100 of 2017.

2. Precisely the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that petitioners herein claiming themselves to be owners in possession of the suit property known as Delphine Lodge Estate, bearing Khata Khatauni No. 25/30, 31, Kita-7, Khasra Nos. 172 of 178 area measuring 4235.21 sq. mtrs., situate at Up Mahal Nav Bahar, Tehsil Shimla (Urban), filed an application to the District Collector, Shimla, praying therein for correction of revenue record. Petitioners claimed through aforesaid application that they are in possession of the property as detailed hereinabove since 1941 and were also collecting rent from departments earlier housed in that property. To substantiate their aforesaid claim, petitioners also placed on record lease agreement allegedly entered inter se them and departments housed in that building as well as receipts of taxes allegedly paid by them to the Municipal Corporation.

3. Vide order dated 28.10.2011 (Annexure P-K), District Collector, Shimla Division, dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the petitioners and recorded the finding that since the entry in revenue record continues to show the ownership of Mr. Murphy, no correction can be made. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by Collector, Shimla, petitioners filed revision petition before Financial Commissioner (Appeals)

under Section 17 of H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, which came to be allowed vide order dated 29.06.2017 (Annexure P-L). Financial Commissioner having taken note of the fact that District Collector disposed of the application made on behalf of the petitioners for correction in the revenue record without taking note of provisions of para 8.47 read with 8.48 of Chapter 8 of the H.P. Land Record Manual (1992 Edition), set aside the order dated 28.10.2011, passed by District Collector, Shimla and remanded the case back to him for deciding afresh in terms of the provisions contained in para 8.47 read with 8.48 of Chapter 8 of the H.P. Land Record Manual (1992 Edition). Though pursuant to aforesaid order, District Collector, Shimla heard the matter again, but since he failed to take note of para 8.47 read with 8.48 of Chapter 8 of the H.P. Land Record Manual (1992 Edition), petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for setting aside the aforesaid order dated 13.02.2020, passed by District Collector, Shimla, whereby once again prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for correction of revenue record came to be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the order dated 13.02.2020, passed by District Collector, Shimla, after the matter being remanded to him in terms of order dated 29.06.2017, passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals) H.P. Shimla, this Court finds that District Collector ignoring specific directions contained in order dated 29.06.2017, passed by Financial Commissioner, again passed the order dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure P-M) on the same and similar grounds, as were taken at the time of passing of order dated 28.10.2011.

5. Mr. Narinder Guleria, learned Additional Advocate General while fairly admitting that order dated 13.2.2020, passed by District Colle