ORDER S.S. Negi, IAS :- This is an appeal filed by Sh. Ujjal Singh appellant under section 14 of H.P. Land Revenue Act against the order dated 28.7.1988 passed by the Divisional Commissioner Kangra in appeal No. 23/88 whereby the appeal filed by the Punjab Wakf Board. Ambala Cantt. Present respondent No. 1 was accepted and the order of the Settlement Collector Kangra dated 7.11.1987 was set-aside. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Assistant Collector Ilnd grade attested mutation No. 1587 on the basis of a copy of a sale certificate and thereby ordered to record ownership of evacuee property designated as Unit No. B.I. 35-101 (P) in favour of one Sh. Karam Singh s/o Sh. Gulab Singh r/o Kotwali Bazar Dharamshala in respect of Khata No. 38 min. khasra Nos. 1005/527/2108. 2127. 2126. kita 3 measuring 222-33 Sq. Mtrs. Situated in mauza Dharamshala for a consideration of Rs. 4050-00 through an auction. This property was further purchased by one Sh. Bhagat Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of Shri. Ujjal Singh and others from Sh. Karam Singh vide mutation No. 1596 dated 12.6.1979. Lateron. Shri Ujjal Singh the present appellant presented an application to the Settlement Collector Dharamshala on 6.10.1982 for correction of revenue entries in respect of khasra Nos. 2109 and 2110 measuring 42-15 Sq. Mtrs. Claiming that these khasra Nos. were owned and possessed by him and other co-shares and their houses has been built on these khasra Nos.. but entry in the revenue record showed Sh. Sita Ram the present respondent No. 2 as tenant which is incorrect and be corrected. It was contended that the khasra Nos. i.e. 2109 and 2110 situated in up-mohal Dharamshala were part of evacuee unit No. BI-35-101 (P) which had been bought by Shri Karam Singh from the Custodian of evacuee property through an auction for Rs. 4050/- but these khasra Nos. had not been included in the mutation inspite of sale certificate. 3. The learned Settlement Collector after hearing both the parties and on the basis of field reports passed an order by which Shri Sita Ram respondent No. 2 was ordered to be recorded in possession of khasra Nos. 2109. 2110. 2121 and 2122 owned by the present appellant and other co-sharers. The possession column was ordered to reflect Sh. Sita Ram as tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 2109. 2110. 2121 and 2122 owned by the present appellant and other co-sharers. The possession column was ordered to reflect Sh. Sita Ram as tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 3/- but rejected the claim of Shri Ujjal Singh in respect of khasra Nos. 2117 and 2118 vide order dated 7.11.1987. 4. Against this order of the Settlement Collector dated 7.11.1987. the Punjab Wakf Board. Ambala Cantt. Through its Secretary filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner Kangra Division on the grounds that the order under challenge was against the law. facts and justice for the reasons that the Settlement Collector had ordered the correction beyond the prayer of the present appellant as Shri. Ujjal Singh had sought for correction of Khasra Nos. 2109 and 2110 only whereas the correction had been ordered affecting four khasra Nos. i.e. 2109. 2110. 2121 and 2122 and that due opportunity to cross-examine Shri Ujjal Singh to prove the case had not been afforded and that the Custodian Department had no right, title and authority to sell the properties of Wakf Board and that the Custodian Deptt. Never sold the unbuilt areas and the learned Settlement Collector had no jurisdiction to decide the intricate question of law and facts in view of the provisions of Wakf Act. 1954. 5. The learned Divisional Commissioner after hearing both the parties and perusal of record held that the learned Settlement Collector passed an order beyond his jurisdiction and accordingly set-aside the orders of the Settlement Collector dated 7.11.1987 vide his orders dated 28.7.1998. 6. It is against this order, the present revision petition has been preferred by Sh. Ujjal Singh before us. 7. The records were requisitioned and the parties were afforded opportunity to address their arguments in respect of their claims. 8. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that Kh. No. 2109 and 2110 form the part of the unit sold initially to the predecessor of the appellant and the same is now liable to be recorded in the ownership of the appellant for which adequate evidence such as sale certificate and a memorandum issued by the Managing Officer Jullandhar in the year 1968 have been placed on the record. It has accordingly been prayed that the said Kh. Nos. be ordered to be recorded in their ownership. 9. It has accordingly been prayed that the said Kh. Nos. be ordered to be recorded in their ownership. 9. The respondent No.1 through written arguments has submitted that the appellant is in possession of much more then they had initially purchased and therefore the Commissioner has rightly held them entitled to an area of 176 Sqr. Yards and it has been prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 10. The respondent No. 2 in his arguments averred that he is in possession of the property as tenant and after coming into force the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. 1972 he had acquired ownership of the evacuee property by operation of law and has sought a declaration to that effect from this court. 11. After thoughtful consideration of the rival claims of the parties the appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is a settled law that a party in order to prove its title to the landed property has to base its claim on some registered instrument which is not forthcoming in this case. There is no material on record to suggest that the appellant have acquired the title of the land under khasra No. 2109 and 2110. There has to be clear evidence of title on record for recording ownership rights in the revenue record. The learned Commissioner has rightly held the appellant entitled to 176 Sqr. Yards which area was purchased by their predecessor. Since appellants predecessor is subsequent buyer of the land in question, he had no claim whatsoever against any third party, his claim if any. is maintainable against the original buyer. Sh. Karam Singh from whom his predecessor acquired title by way of sale. 12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal being devoid of any force, is hereby dismissed. 13. Orders be communicated to the parties and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion. -