ORDER 1. This ‘appeal’ has been filed against the order of Commissioner Rohtak Division dated 27-7-2006 wherein he set aside the orders of Assistant Collector II Grade Matanhail dated 17-6-2005 and order of the Collector Jhajjar dated 14-12-2005"’ and remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector II Grade Matanhail for a fresh decision on the dispute over correction of khasra girdawari entries. 2. Briefly the background of the matter is that the ‘appellant’ applied for correction of Khasra girdawari of the land in dispute from kharif 1996 onwards filing an application against the respondents 1 and 2. The matter was decided in his favour. In appeal, the Collector upheld the Assistant Collector’s order. The respondents went in revision before the Commissioner against the orders of the lower Revenue Officers. Commissioner Rohtak Division vide his impugned order dated 27th. July 2006 set aside the orders of the lower revenue authorities. The appellant filed this appeal that is being treated as a revision. 3. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that khasra girdawari correction was ordered on the basis of the site inspection that was duly done by the Assistant Collector I Grade, Matanhail. During the inspection counsel for the second party was also present. Petitioner’s tube well was also seen and petitioner’s father Balbir Singh was also observed to have ploughed the land. Collector observed that the respondent was not appearing in the court to depose and both Revenue Officers gave detailed findings in petitioner’s favour. Regarding contempt, it was argued that the Commissioner’s order dated 27.7.2006 directed the parties to appear before the Assistant Collector II Grade on 17.8..2006. Before that date the respondents got the khasra girdawari entries changed by the revenue functionaries on 11.8.2006. Civil proceedings are separately pending. The patwari’s entries in red ink "pre supposes the Commissioner’s order” thus attracting contempt. Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 argued that due to several irregularities the Commissioner remanded the case for a fresh heating. The Commissioner has not dismissed the petitioner’s claim. The jamabandi for 2000-01 had already been prepared but Assistant Collector II Grade ordered for correction of khasra girdawari w.e.f. 1996 which was a major irregularity, as Assistant Collector II Grade had no jurisdiction. The Commissioner has not dismissed the petitioner’s claim. The jamabandi for 2000-01 had already been prepared but Assistant Collector II Grade ordered for correction of khasra girdawari w.e.f. 1996 which was a major irregularity, as Assistant Collector II Grade had no jurisdiction. It was further argued that though the witnesses of the respondents were present they were not cross-examined and refuted the petitioner’s counsel claims that the respondent did not depose. Counsel for respondent no. 3 pointed out that the Assistant Collector restored the case that was dismissed in default in an unauthorized way as has been pointed out by the Commissioner. He supported the arguments submitted by counsel for respondents 1 & 2. 4. I have heard both sides and perused the documents on the file and the impugned orders. It is observed that the Commissioner has found several gaping holes in the findings by the Assistant Collector and the Collector. The main thrust of the arguments by the petitioner is that the findings recorded by the lower two tiers of revenue officers were in detail; the respondent was not even present when the site was inspected and that; his father was found cultivating the land; the witnesses for the respondent did not appear even to depose. However, I find that the Commissioner has given detailed reasoning to substantiate his findings. The petitioner has side stepped the question of legality of the correction of khasra girdawari from 1996 onwards even though the jamabandi had been finalized for 2000-01. In his ground of ‘appeal’ in para 3, the petitioner merely states that that “the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner is totally perverse in as much as that the appellant moved an application claiming the possession from 1996 onwards but order (sic) to take effect after the period recorded in the Jamabandi to the order 2000-2001 (sic).” It is being blithely assumed that the correction would take effect from after the date of finalization of the jamabandi. Whereas the applicant never said so in his application for correction of khasra girdawari. In case the applicant had filed an application himself, the omission could have been ignored but having been drafted by a counsel the prayer for correction should have been clear. Whereas the applicant never said so in his application for correction of khasra girdawari. In case the applicant had filed an application himself, the omission could have been ignored but having been drafted by a counsel the prayer for correction should have been clear. Though the Assistant Collector II Grade mentioned in his order that in case the new jamabandi had been made, entries would be corrected for the years thereafter, the intent of the applicant/petitioner cannot be ignored that in the absence of any specific prayer for correction with effect from 2000-01, the correction was desired from 1996. This aspect has not been overlooked by the Commissioner. 5. Petitioner has contended that the Assistant Collector II Grade found the father of the appellant ploughing and on taking evidence from the people around concluded rightly that cultivation is of the petitioner. No doubt that the earlier instructions to the revenue authorities and various earlier rulings suggest that the Revenue Officer is to make the khasra girdawari entry based on the situation as prevailing on the site. However, much has changed in the decades since and it has been seen that things are not always what they seem on the site. Certain parties can be more powerful and influential and can dominate the scene and the entire finding of the Revenue Officer can get coloured if the situational conditions are not kept in mind. Disputes over the years have become more complex in form and substance. Thus later, several rulings direct that the mere apparent conditions prevailing are not to be the basis for a decision; rather the Assistant Collector ought to collect evidence and come to a conclusion on cultivation based on an objective assessment of the facts. This the earlier rather simplistic straightforward methodology of going and seeing the spot and taking decision in an age when life was less complicated was made more complex in form and process due to the acute interests of people in the land in a scenario compounded by shrinking holdings. The contention of the petitioner that mere spot inspection is the only authentic way of determining khasra girdawari is rather outdated. In the case of routine inspection of fields during harvest time, such khasra girdawari entry based on direct observation of fact can still be supported and is fact followed. The contention of the petitioner that mere spot inspection is the only authentic way of determining khasra girdawari is rather outdated. In the case of routine inspection of fields during harvest time, such khasra girdawari entry based on direct observation of fact can still be supported and is fact followed. However, for the contested cases this method can hardly be seen, as without defect. The Commissioner was quite right in roundly dismissing this approach and calling for fresh proceedings. 6. The petitioner has objected as being perverse Commissioner’s finding that possessions was given in 1993. He has discounted, the 'rapat roznamcha' or Patwari's entry in his dairy book showing possession having been delivered to the respondent. According to the petitioner, the said report or ‘rapat’ has no meaning in the face of the spot inspection that shows the respondent in cultivating possession. It is pointed out in the ‘appeal’ that the remedy was the civil court. That is in fact what has been resorted to. There is a civil court case on according to the counsel for the petitioner himself as stated in his arguments. On this aspect of possession also the Commissioner again correctly interpreted the contentions and the facts regarding which the Collector came to a wrong conclusion. The Collector held that the respondent 1 had herself admitted that for 22 years she had been deprived of the possession over the land in dispute. However, Commissioner found the fine distinction that her possession was not there for 22 years after 1971. Her possession was delivered only in 1993. 8. Therefore, considering the matter in all its aspects, there is nothing wrong in Commissioner’s order to warrant any intervention. He has remanded the case to the Assistant Collector II Grade for a re-hearing of the entire matter and there should be no objection to that on the part of the petitioner given the ample shortcomings in the case pointed out by the Commissioner in his order. Counsel for the, respondents 1 and 2 stated that their witnesses were not examined though present in response to petitioner’s contention that the respondents could not adduce any evidence. With the Commissioner’s order, this aspect can also get addressed and the Assistant Collector would have to consider the gamut of evidence to decide on the matter afresh. 9. Counsel for the, respondents 1 and 2 stated that their witnesses were not examined though present in response to petitioner’s contention that the respondents could not adduce any evidence. With the Commissioner’s order, this aspect can also get addressed and the Assistant Collector would have to consider the gamut of evidence to decide on the matter afresh. 9. Regarding the contempt aspect of this case that has been filed before me under section 10 read with section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by the petitioner against the respondents, arguments were entwined with the main arguments of the petitioner. These are discussed below and the application disposed of with this petition. 10 Counsel for the petitioner claimed that the respondents had surreptitiously, in collusion with the revenue functionaries, got the khasra girdawari changed on 11-8-2006 though as per the Commissioner’s order dated 27-7-2006 both parties were directed to appear before Assistant Collector II Grade on 17-8-2006. Patwari’s entries in red ink “pre supposes the Commissioner’s order" according to counsel for the petitioner. To this, counsel for respondents 1 & 2 pointed out that the correction had been made on the basis of Commissioner’s order as both orders of lower courts were set aside and thus correction was made. The respondents 1& 2 were served notice regarding this ‘appeal’ only on 19-7-2007 and they did not have any knowledge of the 2006 order’s of the undersigned. In any case if there is any wrong committed - which has not been done, they tender their sincere apologies. Counsel for respondent 3 also reiterated and requested condonation and tendered apology. Counsel for respondents 4, 5, and 6 arguing against contempt stated, that contempt is a lethal weapon and should be used sparingly. The revenue functionaries implemented the orders of the Commissioner when they received it. On the contrary, it was alleged that the petitioner deliberately hid the fact from the undersigned that the order had been implemented when he asked for a stay. The petitioner filed the petition on 14-9-2006, two months after the order passed by the Commissioner and the 'appellant' was granted stay. Thus between 27-7-2006 to 14.9.2006 there is no order. Thus neither civil nor criminal contempt has been committed. Moreover, there should be a wilful disobedience. The petitioner filed the petition on 14-9-2006, two months after the order passed by the Commissioner and the 'appellant' was granted stay. Thus between 27-7-2006 to 14.9.2006 there is no order. Thus neither civil nor criminal contempt has been committed. Moreover, there should be a wilful disobedience. Contempt cannot be used as a weapon to execute an order 2000(4) SCC 400 was relied on 1992 PW 45 was also cited to argue that mere filing of an appeal does not amount to a stay as had been claimed by petitioner. Nothing was done to cause contempt. In any case counsel also tendered an unconditional apology. 11. On considering the points raised by the two sides, I am inclined to accept the apology. It appears that the Commissioner’s order was given effect by, the revenue functionaries before the two sides appeared before the Assistant Collector and well before any appeal before the undersigned. Thus by the time the undersigned passed the stay order the correction had already been done. 12. The Commissioner’s order under appeal is therefore upheld. In view of the foregoing, the petition is rejected and the parties directed to present themselves before the Assistant Collector II Grade Matanhail as per terms of the Commissioner's order dated 27-7-2006 on 26th May, 2008. ----------------