ORDER 1. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 9.2.1993 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra whereby he has accepted an appeal of the respondent against an order dated 10.9.1990, passed by the Settlement Collector, Kangra. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Sh., Prakash Chand filed an application for correction of entries pertaining to khasra No.353 measuring 144-30 sq.mts. After getting the matter inquired into, the Settlement Collector allowed the application on 10.9.1990. The present respondent challenged the order of the Settlement Collector before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra the ground that no opportunity of being heard was given to the bartandaran of the shamlat land and no inquiry was in fact conducted before the entries were corrected. The learned Commissioner observed that the ownership of government land was given to the Sh. Prakash Chand without impleading the Government or the Municipal Committee or the estate right holders as a party. The learned Commissioner therefore accepted the appeal ruled set aside the order of the Settlement Collector vide (he impugned order dated 9.12.1993 which has been challenged in the present appeal. 3. This appeal was earlier dismissed in default on 3.6.2005 but was restored on 9.5.2006 on an application of the legal heirs of Sh. Prakash Chand. The respondent has been preceded against exparte. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the grounds of appeal. He stated that Shri Prakash Chand, predecessor in interest of the present appellants belonged to Nurpur town and had been living there for the past 10 years, though for a while he was based in Pathankot. The Khasra No.705 was Abadi-Tikka as per the record prior to the settlement operations. In the course of the settlement operations Khasra Nos. 352, 353 and 355 had been carved out of khasra No.705. Of these, Khasra Nos. 352 and 355 had been entered as in the possession of Shri Prakash Chand but Khasra No.353 had been recorded as in the ownership of the H.P. Government. The respondent Shri R.K. Mahajan had no interest in the matter as was clear from the fact that he was not responding to the summons issued by this court. 352 and 355 had been entered as in the possession of Shri Prakash Chand but Khasra No.353 had been recorded as in the ownership of the H.P. Government. The respondent Shri R.K. Mahajan had no interest in the matter as was clear from the fact that he was not responding to the summons issued by this court. The Municipal Committee also had no interest in the matter since as per the instructions of the Government of H.P. dated 16.6.1997 the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) had issued clear directions that the land shown as Abadi Deh was to be entered on the basis of the ownership and possession of local residents and the remanding land, if any be either distributed amongst the right holders or that the land be recorded in the joint ownership and possession of the Bachindgan, Deh. These instructions clearly relates to District Kangra within which Nurpur Municipal Committee area was also situated. Therefore, while the Tehsildar Nurpur had correctly recommended that khasra No. 353 should be entered in the possession of Shri Prakash Chand as verified on the spot and the Settlement Officer, Dharamsala had passed orders accordingly, the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra had passed a colored order in setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer, Dharamshala. It was further claimed that Shri Prakash Chands Katcha: shop was situated a Khasra No. 353 but the same had collapsed over time. However, this area continued in his possession. Although the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra had recorded that the Tehsildar Mohal and Municipal Committee had not been made a party though the earlier entry of the land had been made in the name of the HP. Government and the same could not be changed without giving proper opportunity to other concerned parties, he had misread the record since it was the Tehsildar Mohal who had verified the position on the spot in respect of the applications for corrections of entries filed by Shri Prakash Chand and had recommended the case to the Settlement Officer, Dharamsala. 5. Having perused the record, I am satisfied that the action taken by the Tehsildar Nurpur and Settlement Officer, Dharamsala were correct in law since the longstanding possession of Shri Prakash Chand over khasra No. 353 was clearly established. 5. Having perused the record, I am satisfied that the action taken by the Tehsildar Nurpur and Settlement Officer, Dharamsala were correct in law since the longstanding possession of Shri Prakash Chand over khasra No. 353 was clearly established. In fact, the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra had lost the sight of the instructions of Financial Commissioner (Revenue) dated 16.6.1997 as well as the fact that it was the Tehsildar, Nurpur who had carried out the spot inspection. The order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 9.12.1993, is set aside and the order of the Settlement Officer, Dharamsala dated 10.9.1990 is restored. Announced in the open court today the 3.7.2006. The record of the courts below be returned and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.