ORDER Dr. A.R. Basu, F.A. (Appeals).—This revision petition has been filed under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 against an order of the Commissioner, Shimla Division dated 26.4.1996 whereby he has upheld an order of Collector Settlement, Shimla Division dated 25.2.1995. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Sh. Jagat Ram applied to the Settlement authorities on 18.3.1982 for rectification of the area of his land which, according to him, had been decreased from 87-13 bighas to 75-7 Bighas during the Settlement Operations, thereby reducing the same by 12-6 Bighas. Being not satisfied with the enquiries conducted by the Settlement authorities, he approached the Honble High Court of H.P. which on 10.5.1988 directed that appropriate relief be granted after hearing the petitioner. He also filed a Misc. application before the then Financial Commissioner who, on 16.11.1988 directed the Settlement Officer to hear the petitioner, verify the factual position on spot if necessary, and pass a speaking order within three months. The matter, however, was not resolved and the petitioner again approached the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The Honble High Court, on 31.5.1994 directed that the representation of the petitioner be considered and the necessary correction be made within six months. The Settlement Officer, after conducting a spot enquiry came to the conclusion that the short fall in the area is due to the fact that a wrong tatima was prepared when land was granted in nautor to one Shri Ghasi Ram etc. from land comprised in khasra No. 108/1 measuring 158-15 Bighas. According to the Settlement Officer this land was later partitioned among the co-owners. The partition was not conducted on spot and consequently the landowners are not in possession of the area actually allotted to them in partition. This land as per the Settlement Officer is less in area by 32-2 Bighas due to the fact that this area does not exist on spot. None of the other co-owners, according to the Settlement Officer, have any objection to the deficiency except the petitioner. The Settlement Officer has tallied the old and new revenue maps and area before coming to the conclusion that during Settlement the area has been correctly measured as per the spot position and possession of the co-owners. He consequently rejected the application of Shri Jagat Ram, petitioner. Sh. The Settlement Officer has tallied the old and new revenue maps and area before coming to the conclusion that during Settlement the area has been correctly measured as per the spot position and possession of the co-owners. He consequently rejected the application of Shri Jagat Ram, petitioner. Sh. Jagat Ram filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Shimla Division who rejected the same vide the impugned order dated 26.4.1996. 3. The record of the Courts below was called for and the written arguments filed by both the. parties were taken on record. In his written arguments, the petitioner has narrated the facts of his case. He has contended that the Settlement Officer has not considered the previous demarcations and has passed the impugned order which is contrary to the facts. According to him the disputed land is situated on boundaries of three villages namely, Medchali, Krasa and Furinkote and unless it is demarcated with the musavis of these three villages, there cannot be an accurate and correct demarcation of the same. He has alleged that the demarcation could not have been carried out in a day as has been done by the Settlement Officer. According to him the findings of the Settlement Officer regarding wrong preparation of the tatima of khasra No. 108/1 are factually incorrect as he has not shown whether the measurements of khasra No. 108 were wrongly calculated during the previous Settlement. He has further contended that once the land stood demarcated by the Naib Tehslidar Settlement no further demarcation could have been carried out unless the earlier order was set-aside. He has quoted the Honble High Court in CWP No. 216 of 1984 in the case "Radhaswami Satsang Beas v. State of H.P.," wherein it was held that "demarcation of boundaries is a quasi judicial junction and Collector in his supervisory jurisdiction cannot set aside the demarcation given by the learned Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. It is only the Financial Commissioner who alone is empowered to pass orders under Section 17 (4) of H.P. Land Revenue Act to modify such orders." While referring to the reports of the Tehsildar Settlement and the Assistant Settlement Officer, the petitioner has claimed that these functionaries had found a number of omissions and errors in the record. It is only the Financial Commissioner who alone is empowered to pass orders under Section 17 (4) of H.P. Land Revenue Act to modify such orders." While referring to the reports of the Tehsildar Settlement and the Assistant Settlement Officer, the petitioner has claimed that these functionaries had found a number of omissions and errors in the record. While describing the procedure to be adopted during the course of Settlement the petitioner has alleged that proper procedure was not followed in the present case. The petitioner has also referred to a judgment of the Honble High Court passed in CWP titled "Gian Singh v. State of H.P. (1994 SLC Page 104)/ wherein it has been held that "in the circumstances we accept the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and direct respondent No. 4 (i.e. the Settlement Officer) to describe the current settlement as second revised settlement of Rohroo Tehsil" He has alleged that the learned Commissioner, while considering the finding of the Settlement Officer has arrived at a self contradictory order and that the learned Commissioner has not considered the numerous other facts argued before him. 4. In the written arguments submitted by the State, through the Settlement Officer, it has been contended that the order of the learned Commissioner dated 26.4.1996 as well as these of the Settlement Officer dated 25.2.1995 are self speaking. While reiterating the facts as found on spot by the Settlement Officer, it has been further contended that measurements were carried out from permanent points to verify the factual position as existing on spot. It has been further contended that this is not a case of demarcation but of verification of the spot position and hence provisions of Section 107 of the Act ibid on which the judgment cited by the petitioner in the case of "Radhaswami Satsang Beas v. State of H.P./ is based as well as other instructions regarding demarcation are not applicable here. The Settlement Officer has submitted that the reports of the field staff referred to by the petitioner were found to be without basis and therefore were not considered. 5. The Settlement Officer has submitted that the reports of the field staff referred to by the petitioner were found to be without basis and therefore were not considered. 5. Having perused the record as well as the written arguments submitted by the parties, I am of the opinion that the argument advanced by the State that the present matter is not a case of a demarcation under Section 107 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 but a spot verification is correct. The entire controversy has arisen out of the claim of the petitioner that his area has been reduced during the Settlement operations. The spot inspection by the settlement field staff as well as the Settlement Officer himself were a consequence of the same. Hence, neither of the case law cited by the petitioner in this regard is relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present matter. As regards the rallying of the points on spot as well as the claim of the petitioner regarding errors and omission found by the lower Settlement functionaries which allegedly were not considered by the learned Settlement Officer, all these objections have been raised before the learned Commissioner who has deliberated upon each objection and found, them to be baseless. The learned Commissioner has carefully gone into the various reports of the field functionaries as well as the learned Settlement Officer and has based his findings on a logical conclusion arrived there upon. A perusal of the order of the Settlement Officer shows that he has carefully compared the old and new record and has concluded that the excess area as depicted in the previous record does not factually exist on spot. He has tallied the areas of the old and the new khasra numbers before concluding the same. The petitioner, who has alleged that the Settlement Officer was biased against him, has failed to lead a credible evidence to sustain his allegations. He has not been able to make out a case to convince this Court whether the Courts below have failed in exercise of their lawful jurisdiction or have they exceeded the jurisdiction vested in them under law. He has also not been able to convince this Court of any material irregularity having been committed which may warrant an interference in revision. Hence a case is not made out where an interference in revision is required. He has also not been able to convince this Court of any material irregularity having been committed which may warrant an interference in revision. Hence a case is not made out where an interference in revision is required. The revision petition is dismissed. 6. Announced in the open Court today on 28th June, 2005. 7. Order be communicated to the petitioner and case file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion. Revision petition dismissed.