ORDER By the Court.—This revision petition has been preferred, by Shri furan Singh, Petitioner (now deceased), against an order dated 16.4.1996 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division in appeal No. 216/93, whereby the appeal of the present petitioner dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that as per order dated 9.3.1982, the district Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Solan had ordered transfer [of the land comprising khasra No. 1/2, measuring 104 sq. mtrs. recorded in the ownership of H.P. Government, khasra No. 2/2/2/2/2, measuring C762 sq. mtrs. recorded in the ownership of Shri Jeet Singh, Puran Singh etc. Khasra No. 2/2/2/1/2, measuring 410 Sq. mtrs. And khasra 2/2/ 1/2, measuring 80 sq. mtrs., kita 4 total area measuring 4356 sq.mtrs belonging to village Kather-Solan .and to include the same in village Saproon. It has been held that this area belongs to Village Saproon. The order was implemented by the field staff in the revenue record vide mutation No. 145 attested on 3.5.1982. Aggrieved by this order of the Collector, Settlement (D.C.), Solan, Shri Puran Singh, the present petitioner (now deceased) filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division who after hearing the parties and examining the record, remanded the matter back to the Settlement Collector, Shimla with the direction to hear the affected parties and if required the mutation be also reviewed. On remand, the learned Settlement Officer, Shimla, processed the case and vide order dated 29.3.1993, he rejected the application and upheld the order passed by the District Collector-cum-Settlement [Officer, Solan dated 9.3.1982. 3. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Settlement Collector, Shimla dated 29.3.1993, the present petitioner, Puran Singh (now deceased) filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioners, Shimla, who vide his order dated 16.4.1996, dismissed the same and held that the land in question which had apparently been surveyed as belonging to both Kather and Saproon estates was more properly accounted for in Saproon. The record to the effect that there are several old buildings and the local people have never paid municipal taxes (Saproon is outside Municipal limits having been part of Pepsu State while Kather-Solan was part of Baghat State and then Mahasu District) is indicative of this. He has further held that actually there is no reduction in the area under the ownership of the appellant (Puran Singh). He has further held that actually there is no reduction in the area under the ownership of the appellant (Puran Singh). Still aggrieved by this order of Commissioner, Shimla Division, this present petition has been filed before this Court. 4. The record of the case has been perused and Counsel for the parties heard. Counsel for the petitioners reiterated the grounds of appeal stating that the dispute involved boundaries of 3 villages. In 1968-69 settlement operations took place regarding Kather village and in 1979-80 the settlement of village Saproon took place. Prior to this, the settlement operations had taken place in 1910 for both villages and the land had been measured in bighas and biswas. In the last settlement, however, it was measured in the metric system and 9-1/2 bighas shown excess in village Kather had been, transferred to village Saproon. This land belonged to private parties and the Settlement Officer had exceeded his jurisdiction in showing this land as transferred to the State. He further argued that Mutation No. 145 had been sanctioned behind the back of the petitioner. The Divisional Commissioner had remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer to give opportunity to the parties to be heard. The Settlement Officer did not himself visit the spot but sent the Naib-Tehsildar instead and on the basis of the report of the Naib-Tehsildar he passed the order transferring the excess area to the State. The State did not have ownership of the land. The Block Development Officers office had raised construction on this area. In fact, the land of both the villages should have been measured as per the mussavis, field book and records of the previous settlement operations. The petitioner had also made a complaint in this regard to the Lokayukta but the same did not yield any result. 5. The learned D.A. (Revenue) appearing on behalf of the State, argued that under Section 43 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act the waste area belonged to the State Government. Shri Puran Chand was owner of 101 bighas of land in village Kather and in the settlement operation of 1969-70 he had got the area as owned by him. The same happened in the case of the other estate right holders too. Shri Puran Chand was owner of 101 bighas of land in village Kather and in the settlement operation of 1969-70 he had got the area as owned by him. The same happened in the case of the other estate right holders too. The remaining area which was in excess of the light holders share was termed as "kham" and in 1979-80 this area of 9 bighas was transferred to Saproon village. The case had already been remanded by the Divisional Commissioner once to the Settlement Officer and full opportunity was given to the parties to be heard. The measurement was again done on the ground d it was established that this area of 9 bighas has correctly been own in Saproon village. In fact, the Settlement Officer had also visited spot personally. Shri Puran Chand had no right to challenge the order of the Settlement Officer on behalf of the estate right holders. Is land had certainly not been reduced in the course of the settlement operation but he actually had some excess area in his possession. The Shajra of 1924 i.e. of the last settlement operation was never attested d it could not be considered to be an authenticated document. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that he had not en given opportunity to produce the record of 1924. That record should lave been relied on before passing the orders transferring land to the State. 6. The perusal of the record shows that the Settlement Officer had based a detailed order on 29.03.1993 after checking out the position on me spot and accounting for the area of the two Mohals and the owned land of the estate right to holders. The learned Divisional Commissioner Bad also heard the matter and passed his orders on 16.04.1996 wherein fee has concluded that the land in question that had apparently been surveyed as belonging to both Kather and Saproon was Muhals more properly accounted for in Saproon. Also the owned area of Shri Puran Chand was with him Kid he had not lost out in any manner by the order of the Settlement Officer dated 29.03.1993. In view of the above, the revision petition is rejected. 7. Announced in the open Court today on the 5.8.2006 at Solan. 8. The record of the Courts below be returned and the file be consigned b the record room after due completion. In view of the above, the revision petition is rejected. 7. Announced in the open Court today on the 5.8.2006 at Solan. 8. The record of the Courts below be returned and the file be consigned b the record room after due completion. Revision petition rejected.