ORDER This revision petition has been preferred u/s 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act against the orders dated 5.03.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Kangra Division in appeal no. 44/2003 whereby the appeal of the present petitioner was rejected. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 28.3.1972 one Shri Jagat Ram son of Shri Jaishi Ram, resident of Siholi, Dakhli Katrah, Tehsil Dehra sold his 160/2807 share in land comprised in khata no. 16 min, khasra no. 492 measuring 8 kanals as per jamabandi for the year 195556 situated in Tika Baliara, Dakhli Anoh, Tehsil Dehra to S/Shri Roshan Lal, Pritam Singh and Udham Singh, sons of Sh. Bhagat Ram residents of Kan9i, Tehsil Dehra in equal shares for a consideration of Rs. 3000/-. Mutation no. 148 was sanctioned on the basis of the sale deed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade on 30.01.1973 with a tatima prepared on the back of the mutation as kahasra no. 492/1 showing the land transferred. This land was again sold by these above mentioned vendees vide registered sale deed no. 1810n 14.5.1974 to Shri Rosham Lal and Shri Bachittar Singh, sons of Shri Ravan, present petitioner and proforma respondent respectively. At the same time, one Shri Bhagwan Singh procured a copy of mutation no. 148 from the Copying Agency at Dharamshala and submitted the same before the Consolidation Officer, Dehra for correction of entries. The Consolidation Officer, Dehra found that some over writings had been made in the tatima in respect of the eastern side of one khasra no. 548/492/1 showing the length as 49 karams. The said officer made a reference to the Incharge, Copying Agency at Dharaplshala vide letter No. 1300 dated 12.6.2000 to ascertain the dimensions of the eastern side of kahsra no. 548/492/1, as on the 'Parat Patwar' of the same mutation, it was shown as 44 karams. Simultaneously, the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra district also received a complaint made by Shri Kulvinder Singh through the Deputy Inspector General (Vigilance), Shimla, on the same matter. In this complaint, it was alleged that tampering has been done while giving copy of mutation no. 148 marking the eastern side as 49 karams instead of 44 karams in the tatima prepared on this mutation. It was mentioned in this complaint that in the year 1986-87, khasra No. 492/1 was converted to new khasra no. 616. In this complaint, it was alleged that tampering has been done while giving copy of mutation no. 148 marking the eastern side as 49 karams instead of 44 karams in the tatima prepared on this mutation. It was mentioned in this complaint that in the year 1986-87, khasra No. 492/1 was converted to new khasra no. 616. After Settlement, this khasra number was numbered as khasra no. 1036 and the correction of dimensions of this khasra no. including other khasra nos was allowed by the Settlement Collector vide orders dated 3.1.2000 which has also been agitated separately in another case by the same petitioner. The matter was enquired into by the Deputy Commissioner who came to the conclusion that the length of eastern side of khasra no. 548/492/1 (old) i.e. new khasra no. 1036 in the tatima on the copy of mutation no. 148 was actually 44 karams and was made 49 karams by tampering with the record and therefore, vide order dated 20.1.2003 ordered for necessary correction. in the length of eastern side of the khasra no. He also directed the District Revenue Officer to enquire into the matter as to at what level the tampring was done for initiating departmental proceedings. This order was challenged in appeal by Shri Roshan Lal, present petitioner before the Commissioner, Kangra Division, who vide order dated 5.3.2007 dismissed the same. This revision petition has been filed against the Commissioner's orders. 3. Learned counsel for both sides argued this case jointly with Revision No. 166/2007. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lower court 4as wrongly upheld the correction of the record i.e. tatima showing the eastern side of khasra no. 548/492 as 44 karams instead of 49 karams which is contrary to position on the spot and according to him, the eastern dimension of the khasra no. was rightly depicted as 49 karams. He pleaded that the impugned orders deserved to be set aside and he even questioned the jurisdiction of District Collector to order such correction. 4. The learned counsel for respondent argued that the aforesaid correction in the tatima was rightly ordered by the district Collector after thorough inquiry and scrutiny of Revenue records which had been tampered with by lower officials. 5. 4. The learned counsel for respondent argued that the aforesaid correction in the tatima was rightly ordered by the district Collector after thorough inquiry and scrutiny of Revenue records which had been tampered with by lower officials. 5. On the consideration of the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it is clearly brought out that the Collector, Kangra district ordered the change with regard to the eastern side of the Khasra no. 548/492 as 44 karams instead of 49 karams on the basis of a detailed inquiry and came to conclusion that the dimension of. the eastern side of the khasra no. 44 karams as per the tatima made in the mutation register with the concerned Patwari whereas tampering was done in the copy of mutation in the record room of the district. According to the District Revenue Officer, the scale when applied on the said tatima also indicated the eastern dimension of this khasra no. as 44 karams. The collector himself also made comparisons of the tatima on mutation no. 148 and noticed the tampering/ over writing and came to the conclusion that the length of eastern side was 44 karams. In view of the detailed inquiry, there is nothing wrong in restoration of correct dimensions in respect of khasra no. 548/492 from 49 karams to 44 karams ordered by the district Collector and affirmed by the Commissioner. The pleas/arguments of the petitioner in this regard are devoid of any merits. 6. The contention of the learned counsel that the district Collector did not have jurisdiction to order such to order such correction is also not correct. The district Collector merely ordered the restoration of entry that existed in the records before and which should have continued to exit in the subsequent records and was changed by way of tampering. Per se, the district Collector did not order correction but restored a pre-existing entry in the records, being custodian of the records in the district. In fact, once the tampering was brought to his notice, he was duty bound to undo the tampering and maintain such valuable records correctly as these affect the rights of the people/public at large. 7. The petitioner has further contended that the land in question was purchased by predecessor in interest to the extent of 160/2807 share and therefore no tatima could have been made in the mutation effecting the transfer. 7. The petitioner has further contended that the land in question was purchased by predecessor in interest to the extent of 160/2807 share and therefore no tatima could have been made in the mutation effecting the transfer. He argued that no specific area could have been assigned to the purchasers unless partition took place between the parties and separate holdings were assigned to the share holders. He sought that the orders be set aside on this ground alone. The learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that since the parties are in separate possession, there is no justification to reflect the holding as joint in the Revenue records. 8. The contention of the petitioner also lacks merit as he himself admits that the tatima existed in the Revenue records even before he purchased the land in question. As a matter of fact, the land in question was purchased by the predecessor in interest of the present petitioner, i.e. S/Shri Roshan Lal, Pritam Singh and Udham Singh s/o Bhagat Ram in the year 1972 through a registered sale deed on 28.3.1972 from one Shri Jagat Ram s/o Shri Jaishi Ram and mutation no. 148 was entered and attested by the Revenue Officer/Assistant Collector to effect the said transfer. The mutation was attested way back on 30.1.1973. The tatima of khasra no. 492/1 was reflected in the mutation. Later on, the present petitioner and proforma respondent purchased the land through a registered sale deed on 14.5.1974 and aforesaid tatima was incorporated in the mutation that affected the said transfer in the revenue records in the name of the purchasers. Thus, the present petitioner acquired the specific portion of land held by his predecessor-in-interest through mutation no. 148. Therefore, at this stage, it is not open to the petitioner to say that his predecessor in interest could not have acquired a specific parcel of land and he should have been reflected in joint share-holding. His predecessor acquired possession of a specific khasra no. which passed on to him and he cannot plead at this stage that he could not be shown to have purchased a specific khasra no. as reflected in the tatima. The possession of the petitioner in the khasra no. also seems to re-inforce the correctness of the tatima, notwithstanding his assertion that the dimensions of khasra no. 548/492 or 492/1 on the eastern side is not correct. as reflected in the tatima. The possession of the petitioner in the khasra no. also seems to re-inforce the correctness of the tatima, notwithstanding his assertion that the dimensions of khasra no. 548/492 or 492/1 on the eastern side is not correct. Secondly, the fact that he is agitating about the correctness of the tatima seems to show his possession and severance of joint status. Therefore, this contention is not acceptable. 9. Consequently, the revision petition is without force and is dismissed. 10. This order also disposes of another revision petition registered as revision petition no. 166/2007 filed by the same petitioner Shri Roshan Lal against Smt. Sheela Devi and Shri Bachiter Singh, the proforma respondent in that revision petition on the same grounds. In fact, the grounds of revision in that petition are the same computer generated petition which reads the same as in the present petition, though the revision petition originates in an order passed by the Collector Settlement, Kangra at Oharamshala on 2.1.2000, that was upheld by the Commissioner Kangra vide order dated 5.3.2007 in appeal filed by the present petitioner: Findings on the grounds of revision stand already returned vide this order in the aforesaid paras, as no new ground has been either set out in memorandum of petition or pressed at the bar by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 11. It seems necessary to point out here that the orders passed by the Settlement Collector re-inforces the findings recorded hereinabove in respect of dimension of khasra no. 548/492 on its eastern side measuring 44 karams, as found by the Settlement Collector himself during the spot inspection of the land in question conducted on 27.12.1999 in the presence of parties. The corresponding khasra no. assigned to khasra no. 548/492 in the settlement record is 1036 and eastern dimensions of this khasra no. as per record and on the spot as found by the Settlement Officer is 44 karams. Therefore, the findings of the Settlement Collector Kangra are the same as those recorded by the Collector, Kangra district and have been rightly upheld by the Commissioner vide the impugned 6rders. 12. Consequently, the revision petition No. 166/2007 also being devoid of merit, is hereby rejected. 13. Announced in open court today the 5th May, 2009. The lower court files be returned. The file be consigned to the records after completion. M.RB.