ORDER Order: This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against an order of Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, dated 4.2.2005 whereby the Ld. Commissioner has declined an appeal filed by the petitioner against an order dated 16.2.2004 of the Settlement Collector, who had rejected an application of correction of revenue entries preferred before him by the present petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner had filed an application before the Settlement Collector, Shimla stating therein that they had purchased land measuring 30-40 bighas in up-mohal Nalagarh vide sale deed No 593, dated 16.2.2004. According to the petitioner, a wrong entry has been made in the remarks column of the jamabandi for the year 1998-99 regarding a charge thereupon in pursuance of an order of the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, even though there was no such order of the Honble Court against them. The Settlement Collector, got the matter inquired into and even though the field staff reported that the entries of charge in pursuance of the order of the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has been wrongly made on the land of the petitioner, and that it should have been made on the land of the present respondents, the Settlement Collector declined the application of the petitioner on the ground that the field staff has not correctly analyzed the order of the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and therefore he is not satisfied with the same. He further held that the same advocate is representing both the parties which is not permissible. He, therefore, rejected the application on 16.2.2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Shimla Division, who also rejected the same on the grounds that the entries of mortgage already existed on the jamabandi for the year 1998-99, when the petitioner purchased the land on 26.5.99. Hence the present revision petition has been filed. The record of the courts below was called for and the arguments advanced by the Id. Counsel for the parties were heard. 3. Sh. K.S. Banyal, the Id. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the entries made in the remarks column of the jamabandi pertaining to the land of the petitioner were without any basis. According to the Id. The record of the courts below was called for and the arguments advanced by the Id. Counsel for the parties were heard. 3. Sh. K.S. Banyal, the Id. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the entries made in the remarks column of the jamabandi pertaining to the land of the petitioner were without any basis. According to the Id. Counsel, though both the petitioner as well as the respondent firms belong to the same proprietor, the land purchased in the name of the respondent firm was a subject matter of dispute between one M/s Himachal Worsted Mills Ltd. and the Punjab National Bank with whom the said M/s Himachal Worsted Mills Ltd. had mortgaged its land and property. The Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before which the matter was pending adjudication, was pleased to pass an order of attachment of the land and property of M/s Himachal Worsted Mills Ltd. Vide an interim order dated 18.5.1995. The present respondent filed an application before the Honble Court on 31.5.1995 for being impleaded as a party as the possession of said land and property of M/S Himachal Worsted Mills Ltd. stood transferred to the present respondent much before filing of the suit before the Honble High Court in pursuance of an acceptance of offer made by the State Government and certain financial institutions from whom the said Himachal Worsted Mills. Ltd. had taken financial assistance. The Honble Court was pleased on 19.4.96 to modify the earlier order passed on the 18.5.1995 and allowed the execution of sale deed in favour of the present respondents subject to the final disposal of the pending suit. Hence, according to the Id. Counsel, when the respondent was not even a party to the dispute, how could a charge be created on their property. He prayed for setting aside the impugned orders and sought relief of issuance of appropriate orders to the revenue agencies concerned to make necessary corrections in the revenue records. 4. Shri Rakesh Chandel, the Id. counsel for the respondent did not contest the claim made by the Id, Counsel for the petitioner. He, on his part narrated the facts as stated by the Id. 4. Shri Rakesh Chandel, the Id. counsel for the respondent did not contest the claim made by the Id, Counsel for the petitioner. He, on his part narrated the facts as stated by the Id. Counsel for the petitioner and agreed that the petitioner was not a party before the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, and had nothing to do with the pending suit in which the orders of attachment were passed by the Honble Court. 5. Having heard the contentions of the Id. Counsel for both the parties and perusing the record, it appears that while passing the order dated 16.2.2004 the Id. Settlement Collector has failed to properly appreciate the reports of the field agency. He has merely rejected the reports on the ground that the field staff have not correctly analyzed the orders of the Honble High Court. He has not stated any reason as to how he arrived at this conclusion even when the orders have not even been discussed by him. Similarly, the learned Commissioner has also failed, in the exercise of his jurisdiction as he has not stated as to how he has concluded that the note regarding charge was already in existence in the revenue record when the petitioner purchased the land. Both the courts below have failed to adjudicate upon the plea of the petitioner that they were not a party before the Honble High Court and hence no order of attachment of their property could have been passed. 6. In view of the facts discussed above and also the fact that the Id. Counsel for the respondent has agreed with the averments made by the Id. Counsel for the petitioner, the revision petition is accepted. The orders dated 4.2.2005 passed by the learned Commissioner, Shimla Division as well as those passed by the Ld. Settlement Collector, Shimla dated 16.4.2004 are set aside. 7. Before parting with the matter, it is directed that the necessary entries of charge in the revenue records be made strictly in compliance with the orders dated 19.4.1996 of the Honble High Court or any other subsequent orders, if passed, by the Honble Court, the revenue record should be corrected accordingly. 8. Announced in the open court today on the 18.7.2005. 9. The record of the court below is to may be returned. This case, file may be consigned to the record room after due completion. -