ORDER (P. Mitra, F.C.) - This revision petitioner has been preferred against the orders of the Commissioner,. Kangra Division dated 20.4.2004 passed in appeal no. 25/1997. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Haria, the present petitioner had applied to the Settlement Collector, Kangra for the correction of entries in respect of new Khasra nos.1080 and 1084(1290, 1291 and 1294 old) as per tatuma on the mutation attested after the acquisition of land by the Government for the Una-Hamirpur Road. The Settlement Collector passed orders dated 3.3.1993 accordingly after obtaining report from the Naib-Tehsildar(settlement) Una. The present respondents had appealed against this order before the Commissioner, Kangra Division who allowed the appeal vide order dated 28.9.1994 and remanded the case to the Settlement Collector for fresh decision after spot inspection. The Settlement Collector thereupon asked the Assistant Settlement Officer to inspect the site and to send his report after giving opportunity of being heard to both sides. Subsequently the Settlement Collector thereafter rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 31.12.1996 on the basis of the report of Assistant Settlement Officer. Upon fresh appeal before the Commissioner, Kangra Division, the said Commissioner vide order dated 20.4.2004 rejected the appeal finding the order of the Settlement Collector to be correct and as per the law, leading to this revision petition. 3. In this matter, the learned counsel for the respondents filed his written arguments before the filing the written arguments by the learned counsel for petitioner. Both have been placed in the record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is oral arguments first raised certain preliminary points. He stated that both the lower authorities have proceeded on the assumption that the original documents which were essential have not been produced. Learned Counsel stated that certified copies have been produced . Being a litigant, the petitioner could not have produced the originals which are in the custody of the Government authorities/courts, learned Counsel further stated that Financial Commissioner(Appeals)has unequivocally decided that when a Collector calls for a report from the field agency, then the opposite side has to be given an opportunity of being heard. This has not been done in the instant case. 5. In his arguments on merits, learned Counsel stated that earlier this land was owned by the petitioner. The State of H.P. had acquired some land for the construction of a road. This has not been done in the instant case. 5. In his arguments on merits, learned Counsel stated that earlier this land was owned by the petitioner. The State of H.P. had acquired some land for the construction of a road. Since the land had been acquired by the Government, then it cannot be included or counted in the holdings of the petitioner. Therefore the land acquired has to be excluded and the petitioner’s land has to be restored. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also stated that the orders passed by the courts below cannot be accepted because authenticated copies of the documents had been produced. Documents which are certified under the Evidence Act do not require authentication. If the copies produced are certified, then they are acceptable. The courts below could have asked for the records which they did not. Further the suit is based on the report of the Kanungo dated 22.2.1993 which was endorsed by the Naib-Tehsildar. The Naib-Tehsildar never visited the spot and even if he visited the spot, the petitioners could have been notified which was never done. The report was also not shown to the petitioner. Learned Counsel drew attention to the case no.165/06 jagat Ram versus Udham Singh decided on 6.3.2007 by F.C.(Appeals) [reported in Latest. HLJ 2007(1)page 381] which lays down that both sides have to be given opportunity of being heard. Further held that reports received ought to be given to the petitioner who should be given time to file objections which was not done. Therefore the impugned order as passed placing reliance on the said reports were vitiated and liable to be set-aside. 7. The learned Counsel for respondents has submitted in his written arguments that while constructing the road, the alignment approved on the acquired land was not followed by the public Works Department and the road was constructed at a spot seven meters towards the downstream. Due to this change in alignment, some land has been left vacant towards the upstream. The learned Counsel further contended that the demand of the petitioners to get 16 meters along the roadside of Khasra no.1079 was not justified. He contended that if the land is measured from south-western corner of khasra no.1079 to north-eastern corner of Khasra.1078, the same comes to 32 meters correctly. The learned Counsel further contended that the demand of the petitioners to get 16 meters along the roadside of Khasra no.1079 was not justified. He contended that if the land is measured from south-western corner of khasra no.1079 to north-eastern corner of Khasra.1078, the same comes to 32 meters correctly. He alleged that the present petitioners were granted 3 meters of extra land by the respondents in addition to 4 meters already given in exchange during settlement operations which was accepted by the petitioners without any objection. As such the claim of the petitioners on any portion/path is legally untenable and there is no surplus area with the respondents as alleged by the petitioners.As per learned Counsel all the authorities below have dealt with all these pleas raised by the petitioners in an elaborate manner after verifying the entire record and visiting the spot, therefore he has prayed that no interference was called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The grounds taken in revision by the petitioner are that both the courts below have relied upon unauthenticated and wrong documents and thereby committed material illegalities and irregularities. The provisions of Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act have been misread and mis-appreciated and this has led to the impugned orders. Further the petitioners have contended that the courts below have erred totally in holding that tatimas prepared were incomplete and not authenticated but in fact, the tatimas were prepared correctly, duly certified and attested and accordingly mutation was sanctioned and copies of the same produced before the authorities below and were certified as per the Evidence Act. As such the authorities below have wrongly observed that these copies were not true and correct. Secondly the petitioners have alleged that the reports which stood relied upon by the authorities below while deciding the lis were again bad in the eyes of law as the Assistant Settlement Officer never visited the spot and these reports were made at the back of the petitioner. Lastly that the records prepared by the Settlement authorities were incorrect and since the said records were further approved by the Consolidation authorities, this has caused miscarriage of justice to the petitioners. The petitioners have prayed that the revision petition my be allowed and the orders passed by the courts below be set aside. 9. Lastly that the records prepared by the Settlement authorities were incorrect and since the said records were further approved by the Consolidation authorities, this has caused miscarriage of justice to the petitioners. The petitioners have prayed that the revision petition my be allowed and the orders passed by the courts below be set aside. 9. I have gone through the written/oral arguments of the learned counsels for both the parties as well as the record of the case and the contents of the revision petition. The first contention of the present petitioners that the Assistant Settlement Officer had never visited the spot or visited in his absence is not correct. A perusal of the report of Assistant Settlement Officer dated 8.4.1993 placed at page 173/174 of the file of Settlement Officer shows that Shri Haria and Shri Girdhari Lal petitioners were present on the spot on 8.4.1993 when the Assistant Settlement Officer visited the spot. Further as per letter no.KGS/PB/23(4)95-7349 dated 8.12.1995 sent to the Assistant Settlement Officer Una, the Settlement officer has stated that he himself had visited the spot in dispute on 16.11.1995 during which he had observed that the spot position was contrary to the land acquired for the construction of Una-Hamirpur Road. The Settlement Officer directed the Assistant Settlement Officer to again visit the spot with records and send detailed report. In compliance of the above direction of the Settlement Officer, the Assistant Settlement Officer again visited the spot on 3.1.1996 and submitted his report on 3.2.1996. As per this report, Shri Haria and Shri Girdhjari alongwith other residents of the village were present . Thus the present petitioners were present both the times the Assistant Settlement Officer visited the spot. 10. As regards the Second contention of the petitioner that the documents produced by the opposite party in respect of the land in dispute were not authentic as they are not certified by the authorized agency as per Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act, this plea of the petitioner however has been found justified by the Settlement Collector but at the same time the Settlement Collector has stated that since the record prior to the Settlement was not in existence, hence it would not be proper to disturb the record prepared during the Settlement operations because the same cannot be compared with any other record. There is mention in the Commissioner’s order that the Government had ordered special Settlement operations in 42 Mohals of Una district as earlier field maps/records were not available. Now if older/earlier records were available, as claimed by the petitioners, they could have produced them with their application which they have not leading to the conclusion that the Settlement Collector is correct when he says that the previous record is not available. Further the plea of the petitioners to correct the records created on Settlement on the basis of tatimas prepared in connection with acquisition/mutation of land for road cannot be accepted as the Commissioner as written, these are incomplete and do not have all the dimensions. In fact, there is vast difference between land records like field maps and jamabandis on the one hand and tatimas(on mutations) and mutations on the other. In such a situation, there is no alternative but to accept as correct the records created during Settlement. Further, if the road constructed by the PWD, authorities was not as per the land acquired, the correct approach would have been to restrain the PWD from deviating from the acquired land and not in applying for correction or records. 11. In the concurrent findings of both the courts below, the claim of the present petitioners have not been found justified. I also find no force in the present revision and the same is accordingly dismissed. 12. Announced in open court today on 30.6.2009. 13. Record of the courts below be returned and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion. M.R.B. ——————