ORDER 1. This review application has been filed against order dated 10.7.2007 passed by this Court filed against orders dated 24.1.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division. 2. Facts in brief are that Tejwati-respondent no. 1 filed an application for correction of Khasra girdawari before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Gurgaon alleging therein that her husband Ranbir Singh had purchased land measuring 68 Kanals by way of registered deed no.3762 dated 31.10.1980 and some area was Banjar. It was also stated that another adjoining piece of Rect. No.99 Killa No.19/l (5­13) of Sohan Lal son of Hira Ram was also given by him to respondent no.1 for reclamation/nautor. Respondent no. 1 was reclaimed in the revenue record in 1981 and the same is shown as Banjar. The same was given for reclamation through agreement. The present petitioners have purchased the aforestated land from the proforma respondent on 23.4.1998. It was prayed on the basis of the agreement that the respondent No.1 was in possession, therefore, the Khasra Girdawari from 1981 till today be corrected. The petitioners who were added as respondents in the application by respondent no.1 herein on the ground that the land in question has been sold to them by Lajwanti on 23.4.1998 which has also been recorded in mutation no.3908 and they have become owners. The application was accepted by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Farrukh Nagar and ordered correction of Girdawari since Kharif, 1999 upto date in favour of the respondent no. 1 vide order dated 4.8.2000, which was challenged by way of appeal before the Collector, Gurgaon and the same was allowed vide order dated 31.1.2002. The respondent filed revision before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, which has been allowed by him vide impugned order dated 24.1.2006. Orders dated 24.1.2006 were challenged by way of filing appeal before this Court and the same was accepted by this Court vide order dated 10.7.2007. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that this Court while accepting the revision of the petitioners has found that Sohan Lal who was said to have passed the possession to the husband of the applicant had neither any registered deed in his favour nor any entry in the revenue record and as such he could not have passed the better title which he could not have had with him. He argued that there is a mistake apparent on the record of the case and having regard to the fact that the applicant is in actual physical possession of the land in dispute on the basis of registered sale deed dated 31.1.1975 bearing Vasika No.3651, Jamabandi for the year 1976-77 proving that old Rect. No. 1580 was given new Rect. No.99, Killa No.19/1 as has also been mentioned in the agreement to sell apart as well as evidence and spot inspection. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the present respondents has contended that the impugned orders do not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record and thus the review application is not maintainable and the same deserves dismissal. 5. After hearing both the parties and going through the record carefully, I am of the view that the review is time barred. Further, revenue record, i.e. Jamabandi as well as sale deed are in favour of Mahipal. Merely on the basis of spot inspection and the agreement executed in 1981, the Khasra Girdawari should not have been altered. There is no illegality or impropriety in orders dated 10.7.2007 which may warrant review of these orders. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. --------------------------