ORDER This is a revision petition u/s 17 of the HP Land Revenue Act against the order of the Commissioner, Shimla Division, dated 2.1.2009 appeal No. 96/2007. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Settlement Officer, Shimla had allowed the application of respondent no. 1 for correction of revenue entries vide orders dated 7.2.2005 and accordingly corrections had been made in the revenue records. The petitioner had thereupon preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Shimla Division which was dismissed; hence this revision petition. 3. Notices had been issued for the respondents no. 1 and 2 but were not effected. Notice was also published in a newspaper but these respondents did not put in appearance. Hence they were proceeded ex. parle. 4. The matter was argued by learned counsel of the petitioner and respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the application of the respondent No. 1 to the Settlement Officer was allowed within 26 days, which is unusual. The present petitioner was not called and was thus not heard, but his land was reduced. Learned counsel stated that in her application, the respondent no. 1 had alleged that her land had been reduced but the consequence of her correction application was that the petitioner's land got reduced. Learned counsel read from the Commissioner's report and stated that the Commissioner has not given any reasoning for her order. According to learned counsel, before reducing the petitioner's land, the Settlement Officer has to give valid reasoning. According to learned counsel, the land of those whose land was already in excess has not been touched/ 384 reduced. 5. Learned counsel also drew attention to the fact that it is not possible to send the summons, received back the summons duly served, hear arguments and thereafter pass orders within 26 days. This shows extraordinary speed and how the matter was expedited to benefit the respondent. Learned counsel stated that the petitioner prays that the original land of the petitioner should be restored. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 stated that the revisionist had filed the appeal against the Settlement Officer's order. One objection of the petitioner was that an Assistant Collector Grade II does not have powers to demarcate land abutting Government land. 6. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 stated that the revisionist had filed the appeal against the Settlement Officer's order. One objection of the petitioner was that an Assistant Collector Grade II does not have powers to demarcate land abutting Government land. In this regard, learned counsel drew attention to revenue Department notification dated 24.4.1977 by which the powers of demarcation only to Assistant Collector Grade 1 was withdrawn and thus the Assistant Collector (hade 11 was competent to give demarcation in the instant case. Secondly the present petitioner did not take objection at the time of demarcation. As per learned counsel, full opportunity had been given to the petitioner and this is no stage to raise new objections. 7. in rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that the Assistant Collector Grade II can give demarcation, even then the petitioner has to be given an opportunity of being heard. The respondent 8mt. Suman Jain has nowhere claimed that the petitioner has encroached upon her land. Both the lower courts have found that the land of the petitioner has been reduced. Learned counsel stated that the authorities have recorded that the petitioner has 23.8 sq. meters less land whereas the land of other persons has increased. According to learned counsel, the State cannot reduce the land of one and give it to another. Learned counsel again drew attention to the haste which the correction application had been decided; such haste is not seen else where. The petitioner was not even called; the petitioner has to be given reasonable time to put forth his case. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the record of the courts below. The Tej Bhan Bhaskar v. Suman Jain & Ors. 385 first objection of the petitioner is that the application before the Settlement Officer was allowed within 26 days, which is unusual. A perusal of the case file of the Collector Settlement reveals that the application for correction of entries was originally filed before the Collector Settlement (ASO Shimla Circle) all. 6.12.2000, which was forwarded to the Naib-Tehsildar Settlement for enquiry and report. After receiving the report, the case was submitted by the ASO the Settlement Officer, (Collector) on 16.8.2004 which was entered as case No. 20/2005 and instituted on 11.1.2005. 6.12.2000, which was forwarded to the Naib-Tehsildar Settlement for enquiry and report. After receiving the report, the case was submitted by the ASO the Settlement Officer, (Collector) on 16.8.2004 which was entered as case No. 20/2005 and instituted on 11.1.2005. The case was decided vide order dated 7.2.2005. Thus the case was indeed decided within 26 days of institution. 9. The second plea raised by the petitioner is that he was not called and was thus not heard. A perusal of the case file of the Settlement Collector reveals that the case was first listed before him for hearing on 24.1.2005 on which dated the respondents were ordered to be summoned again for 7.2.2005 since the summons issued to them were received back without proper service. On the next date of hearing i.e. 7.2.2005 only Respondent No.3. i.e. ADA for the State of H.P. was present while respondent No. 1 (present petitioner) and No.2 were not present. The present petitioner was ordered to be proceeded against ex parle. It has been mentioned in the interim order that the summons which were sent to Shri Tej Man Bhaskar have been received back after proper service, while no orders with regard to the service of respondent No.2 Smt. Promila have been passed nor she has been ordered to be proceeded against ex parte on that dale. The summons issued to the present petitioner which is at page 178 of the file reveals that the same has been received by one Shri Dinesh Bhaskar and not by Sh. Tej Bhan Bhasker himself. Similarly, summons issued for respondent No.2 Smt. Promila were received back without any report. This shows that the Settlement Collector has not carefully followed the provision of section 21 of the HP Land Revenue Act which relates to service of summons. Sub sections (1) & (2) of the aforesaid section states :- (1) A summon issued by a Revenue Officer shall if practicable, be served (a) personally on the person to whom it is addressed or failing him (b) his recognized agent. Sub sections (1) & (2) of the aforesaid section states :- (1) A summon issued by a Revenue Officer shall if practicable, be served (a) personally on the person to whom it is addressed or failing him (b) his recognized agent. (2) If service cannot be so made, or if acceptance of service so made is refused, the summons may be served by posting a copy thereof at the usual or last known place of residence of the person to whom it is addressed, or if that person does not reside in the district in which the Revenue Officer is employed and the case to which the summon relates has reference to land in the district, then by posting a copy of the summons on some conspicuous place in or near the estate wherein the land is situated. 10. The procedure of service of summons have not been followed by the Settlement Collector. The summons issued in the name of present petitioner Shri Tej Bhan Bhasker was not personally received by him nor by his recognized agent. Therefore it was incumbent upon the Settlement Collector to have ordered for next recourse of service as mentioned in sub section (2) above and not to have ordered ex parte proceeding against him: Similarily, there is no order about service of summons on respondent No.2 Smt. Promila whether she has been properly served or not. Thus, I find that both the above parties have not been heard and have thus been deprived of their right of being given opportunity of being heard. The Commissioner, Shimla Division has failed to detect the above irregularities in the impugned order passed by her on 2.2.2009. 11. In view of the above foregoing reasons the present revision petition, is allowed and the orders of both the courts below are set aside. The case is remanded to the Settlement Collector with the direction to decide the case afresh giving opportunity of being heard to all the parties. 12. Announced in the open court today on 15.1.2010. 13. Case files of lower courts be consigned to the record room after due completion. M.R.B.