ORDER C.P. Pandey, EC. (A).—This is an appeal under Section 14 of H.P. Land Revenue Act, against the order dated 08.08.2001 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) H.P. in case No. 229/96 whereby the appeal filed by the present respondents against the order dated 11.08.1996 of Settlement Collector was accepted. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the Ccfse are that Shri Kedar Nath and Smt. Sharda Devi present respondent applied to the Settlement Collector, Kangra Division for correction of revenue entries stating that the land comprised in khasra No. 568 measuring 0-3 Marlas (0-00-60 Hect) situated in Mohal Mant, Tehsil Dharamshala had been in their possession since 1956 and they had constructed a double storyed room on it. They therefore requested that the said land may be shown in their possession in the revenue record. They also contended that they continued to be in possession of this land despite of its purchase by respondents. They further claimed that the present appellant Shri Gurdev Singh had got an area measuring 31-08 sqr. Meter inter-se the respondents in partition and he had been in collusion with the settlement staff trying to remove the possession of the present respondents from the record. 3. The Settlement Collector after inquiring into the matter, concluded that during the settlement of the year 1992-93, khasra No. 1648 measuring 31-88 sq. mtrs was recorded as Kabaza Swayam Malkan and had been allotted in partition to the present respondent No. 1 Kedar Nath (deceased) who had taken possession over the same. He therefore rejected the application on 11.08.1996. 4. Against this order, Shri Kedar Nath (now deceased) and Smt. Sharda Devi (present respondent and legal heir of Kedar Nath) filed an appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner (Appeals) H.P. that the impugned order was against law and facts proved and as such was liable to be set aside. They claimed that they had been in possession of the old khasra Nos. 658 (0-3) Marlas since 1956 when they purchased the adjoining land and raised construction on the land under dispute and the same was still existing. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Court below had not appreciated the proven facts. The possession of the present respondent has been entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 which has a presumption of truth. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Court below had not appreciated the proven facts. The possession of the present respondent has been entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 which has a presumption of truth. He set aside the order of Settlement Collector dated 11.08.1996 by accepting the appeal vide order dated 08.08.2001. 6. Dis-satisfied with this order of the learned Additional Commissioner (Apepals) dated 08.08.2001, appellant has filed the present appeal. 7. Both the learned Counsels have submitted their written arguments which are placed on record. Besides, Shri R.K. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the. appellant has also put forth his oral arguments. While reiterating the averments made in his written arguments, the learned Counsel for appellant has contended that the learned Additional Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an order against the present appellant without having effected proper service upon him. He also contended that the Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 wherein the present respondent No. 2 has been shown to be in possession of the land in dispute, has been quashed by the Government and therefore there is no question of its having a presumption of truth. The learned Counsel for the respondent has on the other hand claimed in his written arguments that the respondents purchased 0-16 Marlas of land in Tikka Abadi in the year 1956 and were in recorded possession over the same till 1975-76 and their names could not be deleted during the settlement operation. He has also contended that all the respondents have not been impleaded as parties and therefore to adjudicate upon the matter would be contrary to the law of natural justice. According to him, as per clause-C proviso 2(ii) of Section 14 of H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 when an order is modified or reserved on an appeal by the Collector, the order made by the Commissioner shall be final. Therefore, according to him, the present appeal is liable to be rejected. He has also contended that the deceased respondent No. 1 (Kedar Nath) is survived by son and daughter besides respondent No. 2 and since the respondent No. 1 has not been rightly represented for want of bringing all his legal heirs on record, the defective appeal can not be heard. He has also raised the issue of limitation and has submitted that the service made by the learned Additional Commissioner (Appeals) was due and proper. He has also raised the issue of limitation and has submitted that the service made by the learned Additional Commissioner (Appeals) was due and proper. He has further claimed that the spot was not verified and the present matter being a matter related to correction of revenue entries which continued in favor of the respondents from 1956 till 1975-76, no illegally or irregularity having been pointed out qua the same by any authority, this Court would overstep its jurisdiction in case interference in the same. 8. I have carefully considered the written arguments put forth by both the parties, heard the oral arguments submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the entire record. 9. The fact that the present respondent purchased 0-16 Marlas of land adjoining to the land in dispute has not been contested by the present appellant at any stage. However, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the name of the latter stands incorporated in the revenue records since 1956 till 1975-76 is not tenable. Khasra No. 2993 and 2894 have been carved out during the settlement operations in 1975-76 out of Khasra No. 658. Certified copies of Jamabandi qua the same pertaining to the year 1966-67 shows one Smt. Sushila widow of Harish Chander as owner of the same. The respondents have admitted in their application preferred before the Settlement Collector that one Shri Harish Chander was the owner of the disputed land. In fact, the name of the respondent appears only in the column of possession of Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 which stood quashed along with other relevant revenue record by an order of the Government hence, the same cannot be accepted to have a presumption of truth attached to it. 10. As regards the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the order of the learned Commissioner has attained finality as per the Proviso(ii) of clause "c" of Section 14 of the ibid, it is clarified that the said proviso is not applicable in the present case for the reason that the same applies to an order modified or reveised by a Collector in appeal i.e. when the Collector exercising his appellate powers, modifies or reverse any order of an officer subordinate to him. In the instant case, the Collector decided the mater in a trial capacity which was later set aside by the learned Commissioner. Hence, the powers of this Court to adjudicate upon the matter in a second appeal is clearly provided for under the said provision. 11. The order of the learned Additional Commissioner appeals is based on two conclusions:— 1. The report of the filed agency shows the possession of the present respondents on the spot which proves the fact; 2. Jamabandi for the year 1975-77 shows the possession of the present respondent on the record. This has the presumption of truth. 12. It has been made clear in the report of the field agency that Khasra No. 1648 over which Shri Kedar Nath and Smt. Sharda Devi are claiming possession had never been purchased by him. It is correct that the Kanungo in his report dated 2.5.1994 has recorded that the applicant had constructed one Dhara over the land in question. The Naib Tehsildar in his report dated 22.8.1994 has stated that the land had been in the share of Sh. Gurdev after partition. The Naib Tehsildar did not hold any further enquiry due to the reason that the Assistant Settlement Collector had already recorded the certificate of completion on the Jamabandi. 13. The above reports indicate that no enquiry whatsoever has been done by the field agency. No evidence had been recorded. None has been subjected to cross-examination. Therefore, it cannot be taken as valid evidence. 14. As regards the reliance on the Jamabandi for the year 1975-76, Shri Kedar Nath in his application dated 3.3.1999 before Divisional Commissioner Kangra has clearly stated that the Settlement in respect of which he wanted to produce copy of Misal Hakiat 1975-76 showing the possession of Smt. Sharda Devi been cancelled. This has been corroborated by the Tehsildar Settlement in his report dated 1.9.1995. Thus, the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly came to the conclusion that presumption of truth is attached to this Jamabandi. 15. Thus, both the premises on the basis of which the learned Commissioner had upheld the appeal are not based on facts. The order of the learned Settlement Collector is according to law. 16. The appeal is accepted. The impugned order of the learned Additional Commissioner (Appeals) is quashed. 17. 15. Thus, both the premises on the basis of which the learned Commissioner had upheld the appeal are not based on facts. The order of the learned Settlement Collector is according to law. 16. The appeal is accepted. The impugned order of the learned Additional Commissioner (Appeals) is quashed. 17. Orders be communicated to the parties and case file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion. Appeal succeeds. -