ORDER Dr. A.R. Basu, F.C. (A)—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 against an order dated 4.4.2002 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Act whereby he has upheld an order passed in appeal by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Jawali on 29.9.1997. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on a report of the Palwari, Halqua Kehrian, Tehsil Jawali, the Assistant Collector First Grade, Jawali, initiated proceedings under Section 163 of the Act ibid against the present petitioner for having encroached upon land comprised in Khata/Kahtauni No. 68/209 min, Khasra numbers 760/2, 760/3 and 760/4, measuring 0-01-80 ha. situated in mohal Labh, Tehsil Jawali. After conducting an inquiry into the factum of the report made by the Patwari, the Assistant Collector First Grade, Jawali ordered the ejectment of the present petitioner from the said land on 7.10.1996. Aggrieved against the order of the Assistant Collector First Grade, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Jawali, who rejected the same on the 29.9.1997. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner, Kangra exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Act. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision petition on the 4.4.2004 and hence the petitioner has preferred this revision petition before this Court. The record of the Courts below was called for and the grounds of the revision petition as well as the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties were heard. 3. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds taken in the revision petition and argued that the petitioner is in a peaceful possession of the land in dispute since the times of his ancestors. The land, according to him was recorded as Tikka Shamlat in the jamabandi for the years 1958-59 as well as 1962-63. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner being a resident of the village, was in a legal possession of the Shamlat land which was later wrongly shown in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat in the jamabandis for the years 1967-68 and 1972-73 and later in the ownership of the State Government. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner being a resident of the village, was in a legal possession of the Shamlat land which was later wrongly shown in the ownership of the Gram Panchayat in the jamabandis for the years 1967-68 and 1972-73 and later in the ownership of the State Government. The learned Counsel, further contended that when the land was vested in the State from the Gram Panchayat, the Collector ought to have conducted an inquiry under Rule 9 of the H.P. Village Common Land (Vesting & Utilization) Rules, 1975 by summoning the petitioner. However, according to him, no such inquiry was ever conducted. The learned Counsel further contended that he cannot be evicted from the land in dispute since he is in a settled possession of the same. He cited the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the matter of Dalip Singh and others v. State of H.P. and others (S.I.C. 1992 (1) 320). 4. The learned A.D.A. (Rev.), Shri Sunil Vasudeva argued that the land in dispute was classified as Charagah Darakhatan in the latest revenue record and has been entered in the ownership and possession of the State Government. As such the claim of the petitioner that he is in possession over the same is incorrect. According to the learned A.D.A., the petitioner has failed to prove his possession over the land in dispute. The plea of the petitioner that the Collector ought have provided him an opportunity under Rule 9 of the H.P. Common Land (Vesting and Utilization) Rules, 1975, cannot be accepted at this stage as he never raised this plea before either before the trial Court or the appellate Court or even the first revisional Court. 5. Having perused the entire record and hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the State. I have observed that the contention of the petitioner that he is in possession of the land in dispute has been thoroughly examined and rejected by the trial Court. It has been established beyond doubt that the petitioner has encroached upon the land in dispute. In the matter of Dalip Singh and others v. State of H.P. and others (S.LC. I have observed that the contention of the petitioner that he is in possession of the land in dispute has been thoroughly examined and rejected by the trial Court. It has been established beyond doubt that the petitioner has encroached upon the land in dispute. In the matter of Dalip Singh and others v. State of H.P. and others (S.LC. 1992 (1) 320), cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it has been held by the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh that: "It is a settled law that where a person is in settled possession of the property even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law." 6. In the present matter, at no stage do the entries of the revenue record show the petitioner to be in possession of the land in dispute, nor is there anything on the record to prove that he ever made any effort to challenge the entries of the revenue record before any competent authority to establish his claim of being in possession of the same by rebutting these entries. Moreover, due process of law has been resorted to against him. The judgment of the Honble High Court relied upon by the petitioner, therefore, does not support his case as he has not been able to prove his possession over the land in dispute and he has after being found to be in an unauthorized possession over the same been ordered to be ejected there from after following a proper course of law. 7. Having discussed the entire issue at length, I find no reason to interfere in the orders passed by the Courts below who have duly exercised the jurisdiction vested in them under law. The revision petition is dismissed. 8. Announced in the open Court today the 8th July, 2005. 9. The record of the Court below may be returned. This case file may be consigned to the record room after due completion. Revision dismissed.