ORDER:- This revision petition has been filed on 4.2.1994 under section 114(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 red with Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954. 2.Brief facts of the case are that on 23.6.1986, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Shimla attested Mutation No. 157 pertaining to land measuring 87-16 Bighas situated in mauza Saruella Baruella, Tehsil Shimla, District Shimla in favour of S/Shri Satpal andArun Kumar, the present respondent No.1 and predecessor in interest of the present respondents No. 2(i to iii), Like wise, Mutation No. 158 pertaining to land measuring 56-19 Bighas situated in the same village was also attested in favour of S/Shri Satpal and Arun Kumar. The Union Government filed an appeal under Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 against the attestation of the said mutations before the Collector, Shimla Sub Division who decided the same on 30.9.1993 holding that the appeal was time barred and also that the entries had been incorporated in the Jamabandi and hence, his jurisdiction was barred. The Collector however also held that the appellant was free to raise the matter before the court of competent jurisdiction. 3. The present petitioners have filed the petition along with an amended petition dated 31.12.1996 before this court on the grounds that the mutations No. 157 and 158 were attested behind their back and that the respondent No.1. and the predecessor in interest of the present respondent No. 2 (i to iii) have further sold part of the land to other respondents. It has been averred that the land in question was never transferred in favour of Shri Sardari Lal, the father of S/Shri Satpal and Arun Kumar by way of lease. There was no relationship of tenant and landlord between the owners and Shri Sardari Lal at the time of enforcement of the HP. Tenancy and land Reforms Act, 1972 and therefore the mutations regarding conferment of proprietary rights upon S/Shri Satpal and Arun Kumar were illegal. The petitioners have prayed for cancellation of the impugned mutations. 4. During the course of the proceedings, an issue of limitation was raised by and on behalf of the respondents before my Id. Tenancy and land Reforms Act, 1972 and therefore the mutations regarding conferment of proprietary rights upon S/Shri Satpal and Arun Kumar were illegal. The petitioners have prayed for cancellation of the impugned mutations. 4. During the course of the proceedings, an issue of limitation was raised by and on behalf of the respondents before my Id. predecessor and it was contended that the limitation in the matter should start from the year 1975 when the respondents acquired proprietary rights over the land in dispute by coming into force of the Act ibid. It was also contended that opportunity was given to the Custodian Department to appear in the mutation proceedings but the Department chose to be absent there from. My learned predecessor dismissed the-plea raised on behalf of the respondents on 9.6.2000 by holding that the impugned order does not state on whom the summons were issued and whether any such summons were actually served upon any official in the Custodian Department. Therefore, it was further held, the Assistant Collector had no occasion to presume that the Custodian Department had no objection to conferment of proprietary rights on the tenants tot he tune of 145 bighas of Govt. Land/ Evacuee land. The delay in filing the revision petition was hence condoned by my Id. Predecessor on 9.6.2000. The respondents challenged the order of my Id. Predecessor before the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The Honble High Court was pleased to stay the proceedings in the revision petition pending before my Id. Predecessor vide an interim order passed in CMP No. 57 of 2000 on 12.7.2000. The Honble High Court was later pleased to dismiss the CMP No. 16 of 2000 filed by the respondents vide an order dated 31 st May 2000. The Honble High Court observed in the order that; "On consideration of the provisions section 65 of the Act wherein very vide words have been used "at any time....., it cannot be said that any period of reasonable time has to be read impliedly in the provision, especially when the statute is a welfare legislation. The Honble High Court observed in the order that; "On consideration of the provisions section 65 of the Act wherein very vide words have been used "at any time....., it cannot be said that any period of reasonable time has to be read impliedly in the provision, especially when the statute is a welfare legislation. The jurisdiction which the Financial Commissioner exercises under Section 114(3) of the Act on a revision petition filed by an aggrieved person challenging the orders of Land Reforms Officer, or the Collector, or the Commissioner, as provided under Section 65 of the Act is to see the legality and propriety of the order. The Financial Commissioner can exercise the jurisdiction after calling for the record of .the proceedings or order of any authority for the purpose of satisfying about the legality, correctness or propriety of the proceedings or order which is under his consideration in the revision petition." 5. It was ordered by the Honble Court that: "In the result, there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 12.7.2000 passed in CMP No. 57 of 2000 shall stand vacated....” 6. The proceedings were consequently reopened before my learned predecessor on 18.7.2001.Druing the proceedings, the respondent No.2 Shri Arun Kumar expired and on application for bringing on record his legal representatives was filed by the petitioners on 16.8.2002.it was also prayed therein that the delay in filing the same may also be condoned. This application was opposed by the respondents on the grounds that that the respondent No.2 had died on 29.3.2002 and this fact was disclosed on 2.4.2002 and hence the application filed by the petitioners was time barred. Treating the application as a composite application for condonation of delay as well as for bringing on record the LR.s of the deceased respondent No.2, learned predecessor accepted the application on 1.7.2003. 7. On 16.3.2004, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners have sought to challenge two mutations through a single revision petition It was contended that the mutations under challenge were appealed against before the Collector who rejected the appeal on 30.9.93. It was argued that the order of the mutations had merged in the order of the Collector which have attained finality. It was argued that the order of the mutations had merged in the order of the Collector which have attained finality. The matter was further argued on 18.5.2004 when it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the revision petition has not been decided as yet. It was argued for the petitioners that since the matter stands admitted, it is implied that the application stands admitted as well. The matter was adjourned for further arguments but in the meanwhile the respondents filed another application on 3.9.2004 praying for staying the proceedings. It was stated that a civil suit has been filed in the matter before the Honble High Court on the same grounds as have been raised in the revision petition and so in order to avoid conflicting judgments, the proceedings before this court should be stayed. The objections raised by the respondents were decided by my learned predecessor on 17.5.2005. It was observed by him that the relief being sought in the present revision petition is that the orders of the Assistant Collector 1" Grade dated 23.3.1996 and the subsequent mutations of sale to other respondents may be set aside and the petitioner may be declared the owner in possession of the land in dispute. It was further observed that it appears that the petitioner has sought permanent prohibitory injunction form the Honble High Court besides the relief of restraining the present applicants/respondents form withdrawing the amount of enhanced compensation lying in deposit in the registry. The plea of the respondents was rejected and it was held that any order a passed by the Honble High Court will definitely prevail upon all authorities and shall be binding upon this court but the respondents have not been able to give any cogent reasons for staying the proceedings in the revision petition which shall continue. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 (i to iii) have, on 17.3.2006 also filed a MA. No. 36/06 under Section 151 of CPC averring therein that the revision petition has been filed on allegations that the property in dispute is an evacuee property which is governed by Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. These Acts had been repealed and therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable. 9. No. 36/06 under Section 151 of CPC averring therein that the revision petition has been filed on allegations that the property in dispute is an evacuee property which is governed by Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. These Acts had been repealed and therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable. 9. The record of the court below has been called for and examined. Written arguments have also been filed by the petitioners which have been placed on record. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for all the parities have been heard on the revision petition as well as the miscellaneous application. 10. The learned D.A. (Revenue) appearing for the State has argued that in respect of the land measuring 57.13 being has comprised in Khata No.1 Min. Khatauni No. 6 Khs. No. 216(4-11) 217(1-13), 218(12-19), 219(8-15), 220(0-1) 221 (23-14), 225 (0-14) & 229 (5-6) Kitas 8 as per Jarnabandi for the year 1948-49 situated in village Saruella Baruella "Sarkar as Dulat Mandar" was recorded in the column of ownership while S/Shri Abdul Aziz, Abdul Rehman and AN Mohd. Ss/o Abdul Kareem were recorded as non occupancy tenants in the column, of possession. Besides, in land measuring 87-16 Bighas comprised in Khata No. 21/35 Khasra No. 222(0-6), 223(56-17) 224 (5-14) 226 (5-8), 227(11-8), 228(0-11), 230(4-3) & 231 (3-8) situated in village Saruella Beruella as per jamabandi 1948-49 S/Shri Abdul Aziz and other were shown recorded as owners in possession. 11. On account of the partition of India in 1947, the above said persons migrated to Pakistan and their right, title and interests in their property left behind in India stood transferred, and vested in favour of the Central Government under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954. The lands left by the evacuees were declared as evacuee property. The Central Government transferred the management and control of the evacuee property in a package deal to the respective State Governments where the property was situated. The State of Himachal Pradesh is managing and controlling all the ^evacuee property within the State thereafter. The lands left by the evacuees were declared as evacuee property. The Central Government transferred the management and control of the evacuee property in a package deal to the respective State Governments where the property was situated. The State of Himachal Pradesh is managing and controlling all the ^evacuee property within the State thereafter. 12.That the land measuring 57-13 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 216, 217,218,219,220,221, 226 and 229, Kitas 8, was wrongly entered as being under tenancy in favour of late Shri Sardari Lal in the jamabandi for the year, 1954-55 without any order having been passed to this effect by a competent revenue officer/authority. In the column No.8 of Jamabandi, 1954-55, late Shri Sardari Lal was recorded as non occupancy tenant on the basis of encroachment committed by him on the suit land with no rent etc. Obviously, Shri Sardari Lal was an encroacher on the Government land simpliciter. 13. That the land measuring 87-16 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 222, 223,224, 226, 228, 230, 231 and 227 Kitas 8 was leased out to late Shri Sardari Lal (father of respondent No. 1 & 2) from 1951 to 1960 by the Managing Officer, Mahasu as was evident form the rent and collection register. The lease, thereafter, was never renewed or modified. In fact the Managing Officer vide order dated 31.10.1963 directed Shri Sardari Lal to surrender possession of the land (as is spelt out from file No. 342 page 49). Late Shri Sardari Lal went in appeal against this order of Managing Officer to Settlement Commissioner but the Settlement Commissioner upheld the order of the Managing Officer with respect to land measuring 57-13 Bighas, holding possession of Sardari Lal on it as unauthorized, illegal and without any autho/ity. Finally, late Shri Sardari Lal went in review of the order dated 16.8.1987 under Section 33 of The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 to the Secretary (RR) on 23.2.71 and the same was dismissed. Vide order dated 15.5.1971. 14.That on 23.6.1986 Assistant Collector 1st Grade Shimla conferred proprietary rights in terms of Section 104(3) of HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 in" respect of land measuring 56-19 Bighas comprised in Kh. Nos. 216,217,218,219.229,221,229 Kitas 7 in favour of S/Shri Arun Kumar and Satpal Ss/o Late Shri Sardari Lal vide mutation No. 158 dated 23.6.1986. 14.That on 23.6.1986 Assistant Collector 1st Grade Shimla conferred proprietary rights in terms of Section 104(3) of HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 in" respect of land measuring 56-19 Bighas comprised in Kh. Nos. 216,217,218,219.229,221,229 Kitas 7 in favour of S/Shri Arun Kumar and Satpal Ss/o Late Shri Sardari Lal vide mutation No. 158 dated 23.6.1986. Similarly, on the same day Assistant Collector 1st Grade Shimla conferred proprietary rights of land measuring 87-16 bighas comprised in Khasra Nos. 222,223,224,226,228,230,231 Kitas 8 in favour of S/Shri Satpal and Arun Kumar son of Late Shri Sardari Lal vide Mutation No. 157 dated 23.6.1986.The said order were passed at the back of the petitioners and without their knowledge. 15.That respondent No.1 & 2 despite bar imposed on them from selling the said land within a period of ten years of acquiring proprietary rights sold 0-6 biswas out of Kh. No.223 now (223/1) vide mutation No. 164 dated 10.8.1989 to Shri Rajinder Singh etc. respondent No. 30-4 biswas out of Kh. No.223 (now 223/2) vide mutation No. 165 to Shri Chaman Lal respondents No.4, 0-4 biswas out of Kh. No. 223 (now 433/223/1) vide mutation No. 176 dated 18.1.1992 to Shri Shivender Batish. respondent No.5, 0-4 biswas out of Kh. No. 223(now 453/1) vide mutation No. 185 dated 29.9.1993 to respondent No. 7 Hem Lata, 0-9 biswas out of Kh. No. 221(now 221/1) and 0-1 out of Kh. No. 453/223 (453/223/1) vide mutation No. 186 dated 29.9.93 to Smt. Sadhira respondent No.8, 0-5 biswas out of Kh. No. 453/223 (now share 5/1127 out of the said Kh. No.) vide mutation No. 187 dated 29.9.93 to Smt. Darshana respondent No.9 and 0-5 biswas out of Kh. No 453/223 (now 453/223/1) vide mutation No. 188 dated 29.9.93 to Shri Ashok Kumar & Pradeep Kumar respondents 10 and 11. The total land sold by respondents No. 1 and 2 to the remaining respondents comes to 2-02 bighas. 16.That the petitioners gained knowledge of conferring of proprietary rights on the respondents 1 and 2 and the mutations thereof on 27.07.1992 when the Kanungo while surveying evacuee property came to know about the attestation of mutation No. 157 and 158 dated 23.6.1986. After procuring relevant record, the appeal was filed in the court of the Collector (Rural) Shimla. 16.That the petitioners gained knowledge of conferring of proprietary rights on the respondents 1 and 2 and the mutations thereof on 27.07.1992 when the Kanungo while surveying evacuee property came to know about the attestation of mutation No. 157 and 158 dated 23.6.1986. After procuring relevant record, the appeal was filed in the court of the Collector (Rural) Shimla. That the petitioner No.3 Naib-Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer inadvertently chose the wrong forum, as he went in appeal against the impugned order of Assistant Collector list Grade Shimla dated 23.6.1986 under the provision of HP. Land Revenue Act, before the Collector. This appeal was dismissed as being without jurisdiction vide order of the Collector dated 30.09.1993. 17.lt was further submitted that the Section 104 of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972 was amended vide Section 2 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1987, Act No.6 of 1988, whereby the following proviso has been added at the end of sub section (9). "Provided that nothing contained in the section shall apply to such land which is either owned by or is vested in the Government under any law, whether before or after the commencement of the Act and is leased out to any person." 18. As per Section 104 (3), of the HP. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act,. 1972, the amended provision in respect of section 104 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 had been made operative form the date of commencement of the Act. This has been settled by Honble HP High Court in case "Devi Chand Versus State referred in SLJ 1994 (4), Page 2926" wherein it has been held that; "Bare reading of Sub-Section (3) of section 1 of the amendment Act makes it clear that insofar as Section 2 of the Amendment Act is concerned, the same shall be deemed to have come into force from the date of commencement of the Act (Act No.8 of 1974), namely 21 Feb. 1974." 19. Further, in the present case, the Assistant Collector did not give notice to all the interested parties before deciding the mutation and committed material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. 1974." 19. Further, in the present case, the Assistant Collector did not give notice to all the interested parties before deciding the mutation and committed material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. No doubt, that the mutation proceedings are of summary nature but the procedure Laid down under chapter VII of the HP Land Records Manual in mandatory and had to be adhered to and complied with by the Revenue Officer while attesting the mutation. No such procedure had been complied with which amounted to infirmity in the order. It was further submitted that nothing on the record shows how the evidence of the petitioner was obtained. The order was passed behind the back of the revision petitioners. It appeared to be a conspiracy to benefit the predecessor in interest of the respondent No.1 & 2 by the officials of the Revenue Department. The presence of the APP has been marked in the mutation order. However, an APP has nothing to do with revenue cases and mutation proceedings. The entire proceedings were finished in one day which creates serious doubts about the bonafides of the revenue staff. The basic principle of equity and natural justice has not been complied with by Revenue Office below. Further even in terms of proprietary rights conferred under section 104 the respondents were not authorized to sell the land holding for a period of 10 years as per note in the jamabandi of 1987-88. But the property was sold in the period 1989-1993 to respondents No. 3 to 10, despite the fact that there was entry in the order and jamabandi 1987-88. Fraud had been committed to grab government land. Decree or order obtained by fraudulent means Act can be challenged at any time. In this regard AIR 2000 SC. Page 1165 has been cited by the learned District Attorney (Revenue) in the case titled as "Ram Verma versus Jai Chand" before Financial Commissioner, Punjab (Revenue No. 504 1961 to 62), in which it was held that even if appeal is time barred the revision is competent in appropriate cases. In case "Mohan Lal Vs. Financial Commissioner, Punjab 1968 LLT 281, 1988 PLJ 255", it was held that appeal filed or nor- revision is maintainable. Whenever any material irregularity resulting in failure of justice comes to the knowledge of Financial Commissioner, it should be corrected (1977 ILR HP 792 FC). In case "Mohan Lal Vs. Financial Commissioner, Punjab 1968 LLT 281, 1988 PLJ 255", it was held that appeal filed or nor- revision is maintainable. Whenever any material irregularity resulting in failure of justice comes to the knowledge of Financial Commissioner, it should be corrected (1977 ILR HP 792 FC). Also there was nothing on record to show that the predecessor in interest of the respondent No.1 & 2 was a tenant of the Union of India. The Assistant Collector had exercised the jurisdiction which did not vest in him and thereby committed an irregularity in passing the mutation orders. 20. Section 17 of the HP Land Revenue Act, gave unrestricted powers to the Financial Commissioner, for calling for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by any Revenue Officer subordinate to him. No specific time limit for entertaining revision petition by this Court has been prescribed. 21. In support of his arguments the D.A. (Revenue) fias cited the following case law: (i) Union of India Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi and others... (CWP No.53 of 1979, HP High Court, 1977 ILR (HP) 792 FC, "Any material irregularity resulting in failure of justice should be corrected as and when it comes to the notice of FC." (ii) 1968 LLT 281, 1968 PLJ 255 ......Appeal filed or not:- revision maintainable. (iii) 1968(1)SLJ 491 FC HP, Revision No. 50 of 1961 62 FC Pb. Ram Narayan Vs. Jai Chand "Appeal Against time bar", (iv) "Revision competent in appropriate cases". Powers of FC under Section 17 1984 545 HP 66 Notification No. 511-1(16)1/561 dt. 31 March 1956 (v) 1977 SLC 224, AIR 2000 SC 1165, "Decree order or proceedings if obtained by fraudulent act it can be challenged at any time". 104(3) SLJ 1994(4) 2926 Devi Ram Vs. State 1985 Shimla Law Cases 232,1990 (1) SLJ 491,1986 SLJ 279 Further to buttress his point that even if entries have been made in the jamabandi these case be changed, D.A. (Revenue) cited the following:- 1. 1974 PLJ 151 Punjab Land Revenue Act-Sections 16,34 and 45- "Revision of mutation- mutation incorporated in Jamabandi- gross miscarriage of justice due to grave and material irregularities in sanctioning mutation- rectification of mistake - no time limit". 2. 1974 PLJ 151 Punjab Land Revenue Act-Sections 16,34 and 45- "Revision of mutation- mutation incorporated in Jamabandi- gross miscarriage of justice due to grave and material irregularities in sanctioning mutation- rectification of mistake - no time limit". 2. 1973 PLJ 79 Punjab Land Revenue Act - Section 16- mutation sanctioned in 1958 challenged in 1968- "mutation entered in record of rights- necessary parties not heard while attesting mutation- interference in revision justified". 3. 1993 PLJ 586, Sehat Intkaal entered as per record manual without notice to a party - "order is void and non- est can be ignored at any time". 4. 1986 SLJ 265 Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act Section 163 Shamlat Land encroached upon - "Jamabandi entry incorporated in favour of encroachers - whether jamabandi entry can be changed - Yes". 22. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the law it has been pleaded that the amended revision petition be allowed and the impugned order of Assistant Collector. 1st Grade, Shimla dated 23.6.1986 and mutation there of sale of land to respondents Nos. 3 to 11 vide mutation Nos. 164 dated TO.8.1989, No. 163 dated 10.8.1989, No. 175 dated 19.1.1992, No. 176 dated 18.1.1992, No. 185 dated 29.9.1993, No. 187 dated 29.9.1993 and No. 188 dated 29.10.1993 and No, 157, 158 dated 23.6.1986,be set aside in the interest of justice and the revisionist Union of India i.e. Custodian department may be ordered to be recorded as owner in possession in the evacuee record/property, in the interest of justice. 23. In written arguments filed on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and 2 it has been stated that the service of notice/processes in the case instituted against the-State or the Union of India could be served upon the Government pleaders. In the present case, perusal of the Mutation No 157 and 158 would show that the notice in case of Mutation No. 157 was issued to the Custodian Department but none was present and it was observed by the Assistant Collector that in view of the absence of any representative of the Custodian Department it was to be presumed that they had not objection for attesting the mutation. While attesting the Mutation No. 158, APP on behalf of the State Government was present and he did not object to the attestation of the mutation stating that the land belonged to the Custodian Department on whose behalf none was present. While attesting the Mutation No. 158, APP on behalf of the State Government was present and he did not object to the attestation of the mutation stating that the land belonged to the Custodian Department on whose behalf none was present. Since in the revenue record the land was entered in the ownership of the Provincial Government of Himachal Pradesh, the petitioners could not calm that the mutation had been attested behind their back. Moreover, since the entries regarding the mutation conferring ownership upon the respondents had been incorporated in the jamabandi, the matter could only be agitated before the civil courts and could not be looked into by this court under the revisional powers. The powers in revision were confined to seeing the legality of the order under challenge and not to correct the long standing revenue entries. The amendment disallowing the conferment of proprietary rights in respect of the land owned by the State Government came into force in the year 1989 and this could not have retrospective effect as had been held by the High Court also. Regarding the allegation of sale of the land by the respondents within a period of 10 years from the acquisition of proprietary rights, it was argued that the period of 10 years was to be taken from October 4, 1975 and not from the date of mutation of the ownership. Besides, as per the forum provided under the H.P., Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 as well as H.P. Land revenue Act the appeal had first to be filed before the Collector and then to the Divisional Commissioner and finally revision petition could be filed before the Financial Commissioner. The petitioner had acted in violation of the law in approaching the court of the Financial Commissioner directly rather than approaching the Commissioner. Besides, the revision was also not maintainable in view of the fact that order of the Assistant Collector dated 23.6.1986 had already merged in the order of the Collector which has not been challenged by the petitioner. The history regarding the land narrated by the petitioner was not relevant for the purpose of deciding the present revision petition in which only the legality or illegality in deciding the mutation in the case of occupancy tenant was to be seen. The history regarding the land narrated by the petitioner was not relevant for the purpose of deciding the present revision petition in which only the legality or illegality in deciding the mutation in the case of occupancy tenant was to be seen. There was also a civil suit in the matter that was pending disposal before the H.P. High Court as Civil Suit No. 20 of 2003. Since there was no dispute with respect to the entry of non occupancy tenant, the mutation had rightly been attested by the Assistant Collector. Since 1950 till 2003 the petitioners had never challenged the revenue entries. The revision petition should be dismissed as not being maintainable in view of the submissions made. 24.In written arguments filed on 4.1.2006 these points have been......The learned counsel for the respondent has also cited the case titled "Daulat Ram and others v/s State of H.P. decided on 5.12.1978 reported in 1979, Shimla Law Cases, page 215" regarding automatic vesting of proprietary rights with tenants. It has further been stated that the property in suit was not an evacuee property as was being claimed by the petitioners. Declaration regarding the evacuee property had to be made under Section 7 of the Administration Evacuee Property Act, 1950 within 12 months form the date of enforcement of the Act and the notification was I required to that effect. Since no such notification had been issued, Respondent No.1 & 2 and prior to them their predecessors in interest had been coming in open peaceful and hostile possession of the land since 1952-53 and the same had matured into ownership even if they were not held to be tenants. As such, the revision petition was not maintainable. 25. The learned counsel for respondents, Sr. No.3 to 10 adopted the arguments advanced for the respondents No.1 and 2. In addition it has been stated by the counsels that the status of the persons who had purchased land that was part of the disputed area form the Respondent No.1 and 2 was protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, since the revenue record showed the Respondent No.1 and 2 to be owners of the land in question that they had purchased in good faith. The State had already paid compensation to the to the Respondent No.1 and 2 for acquisition of some part of the disputed land and had therefore admitted their claims to be owner. The sale-deeds regarding transfer of some part of the land to the respondents at SI. No. 3 to 10 had not been challenged by the State. 26. In rebuttal it was stated by the D.A. (Revenue) on behalf of the State that although the land in dispute was initially evacuee property, after vesting of the same in the government, the provisions of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 were not relevant any more since the Act had been repealed. The point at issue was only the validity of Mutation No. 157 and 158. The jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner in the matter could not be doubted as these mutations related to the conferment of proprietary rights on Respondent No.1 and 2 under H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act the Financial Commissioner could at any time intervene in a matter relating to lands governed by this Act in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as had already been confirmed in this matter through the order of the H.P. High Court passed in CM.P.M.O. No. 16 of 2000 decided on 31.5.2001. 27. Perusal of the record shows that the history of the case as traced in the revision petition and in arguments put forth by the D.A., (Revenue) is very relevant to the matter. From the same it is clear that Shri Sardari Lal had been heard time and again in the course of the proceedings before the Managing Officer, the Settlement Commissioner and Secretary (R&R). The Managing Officer decided on 31.10.1993 as under:- "Whereas evacuee acquired agricultural land measuring 90-8 bighas (now 87-19 bighas) comprised in Kh. Nos. 222, 223,224, 226, 227, 228, 230 and 231 situated in village Sairola, Tehsil Kasumpti, Distt. Mahasu was allotted to Sh.Sardari Lal son of Sh. The Managing Officer decided on 31.10.1993 as under:- "Whereas evacuee acquired agricultural land measuring 90-8 bighas (now 87-19 bighas) comprised in Kh. Nos. 222, 223,224, 226, 227, 228, 230 and 231 situated in village Sairola, Tehsil Kasumpti, Distt. Mahasu was allotted to Sh.Sardari Lal son of Sh. Karam Chand, Shopkeeper, Sanjauli now at Dhalli on the 6th February 1953, on the following terms:- (i) That he (Sardari Lal) shall have to surrender the possession of the land on a fortnights notice whenever the land question is required by the Custodian for any purpose; (ii) That he will not be allotted to sub-lease the land in question; (iii) That the allotment will be temporary i.e. for one year in the first instance. (iv) The annual lease money will be the same as it was for the last year. Whereas the perusal of the entries of the Khasra Girdawari shows that another piece of evacuee agricultural land measuring 57-13 bighas comprised in khasra Nos. 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 225 and 229 situated in village Sairola Barola, Thsil Kusumpti is occupied by the said Sh. Sardari Lal unlawfully w.e.f. Kharif 951 and these entries continued until now, without any allotment orders from this ffice. It has further been ascertained form the entries of the Khasra Girdwari that s(Sh.Sardari Lal) has sub-let the land one Sh. Juru cast Brahmin. And whereas the said Sh.Sardari Lal has neither got the lease of the land mentioned in para 1 ibid renewed nor he has regularly been paying the rent thereof to the custodian. As regard the other piece of land mentioned in para 11, this does not have behind it the sanction of any competent authority and the land, moreover, has been sub-let by him (Sh. Sardari Lal) to another person. As regard the other piece of land mentioned in para 11, this does not have behind it the sanction of any competent authority and the land, moreover, has been sub-let by him (Sh. Sardari Lal) to another person. I, Bishan Dass, Managing Officer, Mahasu, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, order that the possession of both the pieces of evacuee acquired agricultural lands mentioned in para 1 and 11, should be surrendered to the Tehsildar, Kusumpti, within a fortnight form the receipt of these orders, failing which the possession will be taken forcibly." 28.Shri Sardari Lal filed an appeal against this order of the Managing fleer before the Settlement Commissioner, Mahasu District who, held that the charge of subletting of 87-19 bighas is not established but did not set aside the ejectment order passed by the managing Officer vide the order under appeal dated .10.63. He also passed the following order dated 16.8.87 in Misc. Appeal No. 30 1963. " The third point for determination is whether the appellant was allotted the land measuring 57 bighas 13 biswas comprised in khasra nos. 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 225, and 229 or he came in unauthorized occupation of the same as an encroacher. In support of the cLalm that the land had been allotted to him, the Id. Counsel for the appellant referred to the order of the Magistrate, 1st class, Kasumpti dated 3.2.52 allotting the land measuring 90 bighas 8 biswas and 29 bighas 15 biswas in his favour. From the paper appearing at page 17 of file No. 1-Cus. (14)/51-11, it appears that the allotment of the land measuring 29 bighas 15 biswas made to him in the year 1952 was cancelled in the year 1953 and the lease in respect of the land measuring 90 bighas 8 biswas only was extended and got duly executed. I, therefore, hold that the possession of Sh. Sardari Lal in respect of this land is not authorized. The order of the Managing Officer pertaining to this area viz. 57 bighas 13 biswas comprised in khasra No. 216 217, 218, 2I9, 220, 221, 225 and 229 is upheld. The Tehsildar Kasumpti shall proceed to take over its possession." 29. I, therefore, hold that the possession of Sh. Sardari Lal in respect of this land is not authorized. The order of the Managing Officer pertaining to this area viz. 57 bighas 13 biswas comprised in khasra No. 216 217, 218, 2I9, 220, 221, 225 and 229 is upheld. The Tehsildar Kasumpti shall proceed to take over its possession." 29. Shri Sardari Lal assailed the said order of the Settlement mmissioner in a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner but it was dismissed in default on 21.8.68 as the petitioner failed to appear despite Advocate(s) number of opportunities. The present respondents have failed to produce any her order setting aside the order of the Managing Officer dated 31.10.1963 vide ch Sh.Sardari Lal was ordered to be ejected from both the parcels of land (57-bighas and 87-19) as mentioned above. Sh. Sardari Lal was issued a notice to render the possession of the said property vide notice dated 22.10.19971. A ly of the same was endorsed to the Tehsildar, Kasumpti to take over the possession of the land. The respondents have not been able to show any order of a competent authority staying or canceling this notice for dispossession. It appears however that the revenue staff in the district did not give effect to the orders so passed and the entries regarding tenancy in respect of Shri Sardari Lal continued to stand in the revenue record. It was on the basis of these entries that the Assistant Collector attested the Mutation No. 157 and 158 conferring proprietary rights on the successors of Shri Sardari Lal in respect of land measuring 144-05 bighas. Shri Sardari Lal and his successors were well aware of the orders passed by the Managing Officer and Settlement Commissioner in the matter and knew that Shri Sardari Lal was to be ejected from the area. They were therefore party to fraud when they took advantage of the continuance of the entries in the revenue record regarding tenancy, knowing fully well that these entries were not longer valid after the Secretary (R & R) passed his order on 15.5.1971 in the matter and the final notice to surrender possession of the property was issued on 22.10.1971 by the Managing Officer. 30.the miscellaneous application dated 17.3,2006 is rejected as the applicability of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 is not at issue in the matter in view of the amended petition filed by the petitioners on 31.12.1996. The amended application has been filed with the intent to include within the ambit of the present proceedings the mutations which the petitioners are assailing under Section .17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. The original revision petition was not filed under the said provision of law but had been filed under Section 114 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land reforms Act. Even if the amended petition had not been filed under the H.P. Land revenue Act, it is a settled law that mere wrong mentioning of a provision of law should not debar the petitioner from getting justice. Hence the amended application is allowed and the matter is being decided on merits of the same. 31. In this matter, only the validity of mutation No. 157 and 158 are of relevance. From the above it is clear that Shri Sardari Lals successors acquired ownership of the land in question through an act of fraud. Since Mutation No. 157 and 158 were based on invalid entries in the revenue record, clearly these orders have no validity. Prolonged litigation has been going on reading this land and the Respondent No.1 and 2 have already sold some part of the property to respondents No. 310. It has been claimed on behalf of respondents No. 3 to 10 have purchased the area and built their houses thereon believing in the authenticity of the revenue record. However, the note in the jamabandi of 1987-88 made it clear that the land could not be alienated for a period of 10 years. The sale transactions were void as per this note. As such the respondent Nos. 3 to 10 who cLalm to have relied on the authenticity of the revenue record have not checked this adequately. 32. The issues that have risen in this matter any my findings there on are as under: 1. Is the petition not maintainable because the Administration of Evacuee Property act, 1950 and the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 have been repealed? 32. The issues that have risen in this matter any my findings there on are as under: 1. Is the petition not maintainable because the Administration of Evacuee Property act, 1950 and the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 have been repealed? The matter of applicability of these two Acts ibid was settled by the orders of the settlement Commissioner and Secretary (R&R) passed in the matter and issue of ejectment orders dated 22.10.1970 against Shri Sardari Lal. These orders have not been challenged and by virtue of these orders the property was to revert to the ownership of the Union of India through the Custodian and the possession of the Government of H.P. The Acts, ibid, do not have any relation to the proceedings under H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 under which Mutation Nos. 157 and 158 were attested. Also the amended petition filed by the petitioner’s stresses on the issue of attestation of mutations under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Therefore, the contentions of the respondents regarding the repeal of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and the Displaced "Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 do not have nay bearing on the point at issue. 33. 2. Could the Financial Commissioner hear the mater at all in view of the contentions of the respondents that the orders of the Assistant Collector attesting mutations nos. 157 and 158 had merged with the order of the Collector dated 30.9.1993 wherein the appeal against these orders was disallowed? The petitioners could not go directly to the FCs court but had to go before the Commissioner? The matter has already been settled by the order of the Honble High Court of H.P. dated 31.5.2001 and revision petition before the Financial Commissioner is held to be maintainable. 34.3. Is the claim of open and hostile possession form 1950 onwards in favour of Shri Sardari Lal and his successors valid to further their claim of tenancy on the suit land? No. The State had been pursuing this matter form the 1960s and 3 levels viz. Managing Officer, Settlement Commissioner and Secretary (R&R) have rejected the claims of Shri Sardari Lal and held him to be an encroacher. No tenancy existed in favour of Shri Sardari Lal or his successors. Ejectment orders had been issued against him. No. The State had been pursuing this matter form the 1960s and 3 levels viz. Managing Officer, Settlement Commissioner and Secretary (R&R) have rejected the claims of Shri Sardari Lal and held him to be an encroacher. No tenancy existed in favour of Shri Sardari Lal or his successors. Ejectment orders had been issued against him. However, the failure of the State remained in failing to affect the ejectment orders and not effecting corrections in the revenue record to implement the orders of the Managing Officer, Settlement Commissioner and Secretary (R&R). 35.4. Was adequate opportunity given to the State to be heard by the Assistant Collector before attesting maturation nos. 157 and 158? No. This issue has been discussed adequately in interim order dated 9.6.2000 passed by the Financial Commissioner. Since a huge parcel of land was involved in which tenancy was claimed and proprietary rights were proposed to be conferred on private parties, the Assistant Collector should have gone much deeper into the matter rather than attesting the mutation over a period of a day or two without the State being heard at a sufficient high level. Recording the statement of APP who in any case claimed to have nothing to do with the matter, as the land matter related to the Custodian Department, and then passing the order in the absence of any responsible official of the Custodian Department points to the complicity on the part of the revenue staff in the matter. Had they been performing their duties in a proper manner, the matter would have been brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner and the record thoroughly checked before passing the order conferring the proprietary rights on S/Sh. Sat Pal and Arun Kumar and attesting the mutation Nos. 157 and 158. 5.Was conferment of proprietary rights on Shri Sardari Lal and others irregular on account of the amendment of section 104 to introduce sub section 9 w.e.f. 1988 that in respect of properties owned by the State proprietary rights couid not be conferred on these holders/tenants? 36. Since Shri Sardari Lal was not a tenant on the land in question, this issue is of no relevance here. He was neither a lessee nor a tenant on land owned by the State as establish above. 6. 36. Since Shri Sardari Lal was not a tenant on the land in question, this issue is of no relevance here. He was neither a lessee nor a tenant on land owned by the State as establish above. 6. From which date is the 10 years period barring aliening of the property over which proprietary rights have been acquired to be counted? Is it form 4.10.1975 when the H.P. tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 came into operation 015 from the date of attestation of mutation? Again this issue is of no relevance since Shri Sardari Lal was not a tenant of the land in question. Acquisition 0! Proprietary rights on the area was a fraudulent transaction and therefore he or his successors in any case had no rights to transfer the property to third parties. 37.7.What are the rights of the buyers of the property? It is seen that respondent Nos. 3 to 10 have purchased land from Shri Sardari Lals successors and claimed that they had relied on the authenticity of the revenue record since the land stood in the name of Shri Satpal and Shri Arun and these transactions were bonafide ones However, the jamabandi of 1987-88 clearly shows note/entry in red ink indicating that alienation of this property is barred for a period of 10 years while the sale transaction took place in 1989 onwards. Therefore, the call of the respondent Nos. 3 to 10 that they bought the property in good faith cannot be sustained. However, keeping in view the fact that they have constructed pucca structures on the area purchased by them, the Government of H.P. can consider a settlement with them so that the matter can be amicably resolved with these persons. 38. In view of the finding above, the revision petition is accepted. Mutation Nos. 157 and 158 are set aside. The area measuring 57-13 bighas in Khasra Nos. 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 225 and 229 in Muhal Surella Baruella and 87-19 bighas in Khasra Nos. 222,223, 224, 226, 227, 228, 230 and 231 shall be recorded in the ownership of the Union of India through Custodian Department and possession with the government of Himachal Pradesh. 39. Announced in the open court today on the 07 the August, 2006. The record of the courts below may be returned. The file may be consigned to the record room after due completion.