ORDER S.S. Negi, IAS.—This is an appeal filed by the appellant Shri Dev Prakash Bhatia son of Shri Mela Ram Bhatia, resident of Bhatia Bhawan Phagli, Shimla against the order dated 17.1.2003 passed by the Commissioner Shimla Division in case No. 229 of 2001 whereby the appeal filed by the present appellant against the order of the Settlement Collector Shimla Division dated 23.8.2001 was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the present appellant Shri Dev Prakash presented an application to the Settlement Collector, Shimla Division on 16.11.1995 stating therein that he had purchased 0-6 Biswas of land from one Shri Asha Ram Sharma in Khasra No. 171 (old), which has now been allotted khasra Nos. 816 and 817 situated in Mauza Phagli, Tehsil Shimla, District Shimla. He further stated that the path presently being used by him, has not been shown in the revenue map. He therefore sought the demarcation of the aforesaid land and to make the necessary corrections in the revenue record. 3. The Settlement Collector, Shimla Division after getting the matter enquired into through the field staff found that the present appellant wanted the path to be recorded for the Khasra No. 817 through the land of adjoining landowners for which the latter were not in agreement to accede to the request of the present appellant. The learned Settlement Collector also concluded that there was no path to the land in dispute previously shown or entered in the revenue record and hence he rejected the application of the present appellant vide his order dated 23.8.2001. Aggrieved by this order of the Settlement Collector dated 23.8.2001, Shri Dev Prakash Bhatia filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Revenue) H.P. Shimla on the grounds that the previous owner of land Shri Asha Ram had sold the land to various persons and he also got the plots approved from the Town and Country Planning Authorities and therefore as per law a passage was to be provided to him, but during the settlement operations, the revenue officials had failed to record the common passage which already existed in the Khasra Nos. 817 and 816 leading to the plot of the present appellant. He contended that he had not been given opportunity of being heard in the matter. 817 and 816 leading to the plot of the present appellant. He contended that he had not been given opportunity of being heard in the matter. The present appellant further contended that there existed a path about 2-3 feet wide on the spot which was the approach passage to the plots of the different plot holders and has been provided by the previous owner, but the Settlement Officer had refused to record the said passage in the revenue record. 4. The learned Commissioner, Shimla Division after hearing both the parties and going through the entire record observed that there was no indication of path in the mutation sanctioned and the adjoining landowners were not in agreement to allow the path through their land. He also observed that the present appellant had not impleaded them as a party in the case. He consequently dismissed the appeal vide order dated 17.1.2003. 5. Dis-satisfied with this order of the Commissioner (Revenue) dated 17.1.2003. Shri Dev Prakash appellant has filed a second appeal before this court. 6. The record of the lower courts has been summoned and perused. The arguments put forth by the appellant in person and those of the learned Distt. Attorney (Revenue) appearing on behalf of the State have also been heard. 7. At the outset, it is observed that the appellant has preferred an appeal before this Court under Section 14(c) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, against an order passed by the learned Commissioner (Revenue) also in appeal on 17.1.2003. The appellant had applied for a demarcation to the Settlement Officer who as a Collector held that trial hearing and has adjudicated upon the merits of the entire matter. The learned Commissioner (Revenue) has upheld the findings of the Settlement Collector in an appeal preferred before him. The proviso (i) under Section 14 of the H.R Land Revenue Act clearly provides that:— "(i) When an original order is confirmed on first appeal, no further appeal shall lie.? 8. It is also noteworthy that there is no apparent procedural mistake in the orders of the courts below or pointed out by the appellant which would merit this court to treat the present appeal as a revision in the interest of justice, equity and fair play. 9. Hence, the appeal neither being maintainable under law nor having any merits which require consideration, is dismissed. 10. 9. Hence, the appeal neither being maintainable under law nor having any merits which require consideration, is dismissed. 10. Orders be communicated to the parties and case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.