ORDER 1. By this revision petition the petitioner Prem Sukh son of Thali r/o Village Dushalni, Tehsil Rohru, Distt. Shimla has called in question the legality and propriety of the order passed by Divisional Commissioner, Shimla on 4.11.1988 in Revenue Revision No. 84/83. 2. The facts leading the present litigation be noted thus: the petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Collector 11 Grade, Rohru on 19.5.1972 requesting therein that his possession be recorded on land comprised in khasra No. 1098/860/1/1 measuring 28-13 Bighas situated in Chak Rohm Under the ownership of Mandir Thakur Raghunath Bara Akhara. According to the petitioner the land in question was given to him by one Shri Ghanshyam Dass on the payment of Rs. 150/- as nazarana and he was in possession thereof non occupancy tenant and as such he requested for correction of revenue entries in his favour. The case was processed by the Assistant Collector II Grade Rohru and finally the leaned Assistant Collector II Grade vide his orders dated 7.5.1975 dismissed the application of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner challenged this order of the Assistant Collector II Grade dated 7.5.1975 before the Collector Sub-Division Rohru. The Collector dismissed the appeal of the appellant/petitioner vide his order dated 30.3.1978. Aggrieved by this order of the Collector, Sub-Division, Rohru dated 30.3.1978, the present petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Shimla Division who after hearing the parties and appreciation of material on record dismissed the petition by his orders dated 4.11.1988 which order is under challenge in the present revision petition before us. 4. The records of the case were requisitioned. The parties have been heard at length. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of the parties. 5. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that he had been given the said land to occupy it as a tenant in the year 1970 by the Manager of the temple Shri Ghanshyam Dass on payment of Nazarana of Rs.=150/-and his possession on the land in question thereafter continuous and peaceful and accordingly request that entries in accordance thereto be carried out in the revenue record. He has also stated that the Commissioner should not have meticulously scanned the evidence on record as if deciding the question of title in order to reject his claim of being a tenant. 6. He has also stated that the Commissioner should not have meticulously scanned the evidence on record as if deciding the question of title in order to reject his claim of being a tenant. 6. Perusal of the record shows that the respondent Thakur Raghunath Bara - Akhara, Lamba Akhara owned land in Khasra No. 1098/860/1 measuring 579/2 Bighas as per revenue record, our of which land measuring 28-13 Bighas are claimed to have been given to the petitioner as a non-occupancy tenant against the payment of Nazarana amounting to Rs.=150/ - for which receipt date 11.2.1970 has also been issued by the said manager. The respondent state has submitted that the manager was not competent to give the land to the petitioner on Nazarana, nor the petitioner has been able to adduce any evidence to show as to when his possession actually commenced. 7. The claim of the petitioner for correction of entries reflecting him as a non-occupancy tenant on the land in question is without any substance. First of all, the said manager Shri Ghanshyam Dass had no authority to give the land to the petitioner for cultivation as a non-occupancy tenant against payment of Nazarana. His role is limited to look after the day to day affairs of the said temple and manager the properties of the temple. He can not give the land for the use of private profit to a private person to the prejudice of the interest of the temple. As a matter of fact such like persons should not be appointed to such posts. He had no authority to part with the possession of the land on behalf of the temple or trust. The said manager has acted illegally to create a tenancy over the temple land, therefore entries showing petitioner as non-occupancy tenant are not permissible and therefore cannot be allowed. Therefore the petition deserve to be dismissed in this score alone. 8. Apart from this position, the petitioners claim for showing him in possession of the land as tenant is also bereft of any force. The revenue record shows that the land in question was being looked after by Bhoodan Board. It has not been shown by the petitioner that the said manager Ghanshyam Dass was acting on behalf of the said Bhoodan Board. The revenue record shows that the land in question was being looked after by Bhoodan Board. It has not been shown by the petitioner that the said manager Ghanshyam Dass was acting on behalf of the said Bhoodan Board. The claim of the petitioner being in possession of the land is not reflected by the entries in jamabandi, even Khasra Girdawari does not show him in possession of the land despite his claim of long-standing possession on the land. The presumption of truth attachable to entries in the revenue record cannot be falsified by oral assertion of the petitioner to the contrary. His claim of being in possession of the land cannot be reflected in the revenue I record as a non-occupancy tenant on his mere assertion without any evidence to that in the revenue record. Therefore the claim of the petitioner is without any force and is accordingly rejected. 9. In view of the reasons discussed above the revision petition is devoid of any force and is therefore rejected. 10. Orders be communicated to the parties and the file of this court be consigned to Record Room after due completion.