ORDER S.S. Negi, IAS.—This revision petition under Section 17 of H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1953 preferred by Shri Charan Dass petitioner, is directed against the order dated 15-1-1998 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division whereby the revision filed by the present petitioner against the order dated 18.6.1993 of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Una exercising the powers of Collector was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the present petitioner Shri Charan Dass presented an application to the Settlement Officer Kangra at Dharamshala on 31.1.1987 stating therein that he had purchased 3 Kanal 1 Maria of land in Khasra No. 732 min situated in village Katohar Kalan, Tehsil Amb through a registered sale deed 23.9.1969 for a consideration of Rs. 1,500 from one Shri Chuhru son of Shri Lakshman Dass of the said village and since then he was in possession of the said land on the spot but in the revenue record his possession was not being entered by the settlement staff according to the spot position, hence he requested to incorporate the entries of the aforesaid land in the revenue record as per the documents as well as spot position. 3. The case was entrusted to the Settlement Tehsildar, Amb who after enquiring into the matter rejected the application of the present petitioner vide order dated 23.2.1988 holding that the area of the present petitioner was rightly measured during the settlement operation according to his old record. 4. Aggrieved of this order of the Settlement Tehsildar, Amb dated 23.2.1988, Shri Charan Dass present petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Collector, Kangra on the grounds that he was in possession of his purchased land towards the path but during settlement his possession was wrongly reflected in the record. 5. The learned Settlement Collector after going through the record of the case, concluded that there was discrepancy in measurement vide which the karukans of old and new khasra Nos. were not being tallied, accepted the appeal vide order dated 22.1.1991 and set aside the order of Settlement Tehsildar, Amb dated 23.2.1988 and remanded the case to the Settlement Tehsildar Amb for fresh demarcation on the spot and then to send a proposal for correction to the learned Settlement Collector, Kangra within 30 days. 6. were not being tallied, accepted the appeal vide order dated 22.1.1991 and set aside the order of Settlement Tehsildar, Amb dated 23.2.1988 and remanded the case to the Settlement Tehsildar Amb for fresh demarcation on the spot and then to send a proposal for correction to the learned Settlement Collector, Kangra within 30 days. 6. In pursuance of order of the Settlement Collector dated 22.1.1991, the Settlement Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Amb after hearing both the parties and getting the matter again enquired into found that there had been a minor reduction of three marlas in the area of the present petitioner as compared to the old area during Settlement operation which he observed due to conversion of old method of measurement to new metric system. He consequently rejected the application of Shri Charan Dass vide order dated 31.1.1992. 7. Against this order of the Tehsildar Settlement-cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Amb dated 31.1.1992, Shri Charan Dass filed an appeal before the Settlement Collector, Kangra taking the grounds that the impugned order was against law and facts and was not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that due to wrong preparation of tatima with connivance of the Patwari contrary to the possession on the spot the present respondent Sh. Amar Nath started interfering in his peaceful possession of the land in dispute which fact had been ignored by the Court below. 8. The learned Settlement Collector after hearing both the parties and going through the record found that Shri Charan Dass the present petitioner had purchased 3-1 kanals of land on 23.9.1969 comprised in Khasra No. 732 Min from one Shri Chuhru as per Jamabandi for the year 1964-65. Mutation No. 542 of which was attested on 20.4.1970 by preparing the tatima of 3-1 kanal on the mutation register. It was noticed by the learned Collector that the present petitioner was not found in possession of the land according to the tatima of sale but he was in possession of the southern part of Khasra No. 732 /1. The learned Collector further observed that the present petitioner should have assailed the mutation No. 542 in the competent court of jurisdiction which he had not done. The learned Collector further observed that the present petitioner should have assailed the mutation No. 542 in the competent court of jurisdiction which he had not done. In view of the above the learned Settlement Collector held that as per Settlement instructions, the entry of possession as sought for by the present petitioner could not be made in the revenue record. He consequently rejected the appeal vide order dated 8.6.1993. 9. Dis-satisfied with this order of the Settlement Collector dated 8.6.1993 Shri Charan Dass filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra who after hearing both the parties and going through the record minutely held that after the attestation of mutation No. 542 on 20.4.1970 a number of Jamabandis had been prepared. He therefore held that such old record could not be corrected at this stage by way of application and further opined that if the present petitioner had any claim of adverse possession, he may move a civil court for getting any relief, dismissed the revision petition vide his order dated 15.1.1998.. 10. It is against this order of learned Divisional Commissioner dated 15.1.1988, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition before us. 11. I have heard the parties and also perused the record of the lower courts. 12. The present petitioner purchased land measuring 3 kanals 1 marla in khasra No. 732 the total area which was 7-10 kanals vide a registered deed dated 23.9.1969. It has been specifically mentioned in the sale deed that the land being sold is situated towards the southern end of the said Khasra No. 732. However, while preparing a tatima of the land thus sold, the Patwari inadvertently entered the name of the petitioner on the northern and of the Khasra No. 732. The present petitioner hence, came to be recorded as the owner in possession of this northern position of khasra No. 732 in the revenue record, though he was in possession of over the southern portion of the khasra No. 732. During Settlement operations, he sought to get himself entered as the owner in possession of the land which had purchased vide a registered sale deed and over which he was in possession. 13. It is observed that the registered deed dated 23.9.1969 mentions that the petitioner had purchased land measuring 3 kanals 1 marla on the southern portion of the khasra No. 732. 13. It is observed that the registered deed dated 23.9.1969 mentions that the petitioner had purchased land measuring 3 kanals 1 marla on the southern portion of the khasra No. 732. He was incorporated as the owner of the northern portion of the said khasra No. in the revenue records. Hence this is not a case where the petitioner is seeking a correction on the basis of merely his possession over the disputed land, his claim is supported by a Registered deed vide which he has attained title to the land in his possession. There has been a material irregularity and illegality on the part of the lower courts in not considering this fact. If it is agreed that the present petitioners has preferred his claim after a long elapse of time, it has also to be borne in mind that his possession over the disputed land was never objected to by the respondents till the onset of the settlement operations. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the present petitioner is in possession over the disputed and since he bought the same and his claim over the same cannot be inferred to be without any right especially as he has a valid title in the form of a sale deed in his favour. A mere fact that a revenue official inadvertently carved out a wrong tatima on the relevant mutation does not extinguish his legally acquired title over the land. 14. In view of the above discussion the revision is accepted and the orders of the Commissioner Kangra Division dated 15.1.1998 as well as those of the Settlement Collector dated 18.6.1993 and the Tehsildar Settlement dated 31.1.1992 are set aside. Orders be communicated to the parties and case file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion. -