ORDER This revision petition under section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act has arisen on the recommendations of the Commissioner, Shimla Division, passed in revenue revision No. 265/2005 dated 22.7.2009. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that ejectment orders under section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act were passed against the petitioner by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Tehsil Solan, Distt. Solan in case No. 9/13A/04 dated 17.3.2005 for having encroached upon Government land comprised in khasra No. 143/2 measuring 4 sq. meters. An appeal against this order was filed by the present petitioner before the Collector, sub-division Solan, which was dismissed. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Shimla division, who came to the conclusion that the detailed demarcation of the land under dispute has not been conducted and the petitioner was not associated with the demarcation and therefore her recommendations. She has recommended the remand of the matter to the Assistant Collector for following Government instructions (regarding demarcations) before arriving at any decision. 3. The main ground taken in the petition are that the trial court has failed to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner to adduce his evidence.' Even if he was proceeded against ex-parte by the court, this aspect has been ignored by the appellate court. The trial court has not followed the instructions issued by the Government vide its notification No. Rev. II F (9)-1/88 dated 9.11.1989 which stipulates that demarcation of private lands touching Government lands or where the land to be demarcated touches or overlaps the .boundaries of the another estate, the demarcation shall be done by a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tehsildar exercising the powers of A.C. 1st Grade. That contrary to this, the demarcation in the instant case has been done by the Patwari and the Kanungo who were not competent to demarcate such land. Further the observations made by the appellate court in this regard that it is Patwari's inherent duty to detect encroachments during his routine inspections and the said encroachment has duly been verified by the Field Kanungo is against the spirit of the above notification of the Government. 4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the vice counsel for the petitioner Sh. Rahul Kashyap, Advocate vice Sh. S. K. Gupta and Dy. D.A. (Revenue) for the State. 4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the vice counsel for the petitioner Sh. Rahul Kashyap, Advocate vice Sh. S. K. Gupta and Dy. D.A. (Revenue) for the State. The learned counsel for the petiti6ner has reiterated the grounds taken in revision petition and argued that the case be remanded to the Assistant Collector for fresh demarcation as per the instructions of the Government before initiating encroachment proceedings against the petitioner. The learned Dy. D.A. (Rev.) did not oppose the above plea of the counsel. 5. I have considered the arguments adduced by both the parties and gone through the records of the case. In so far as the first ground taken in the revision petition that the trail court has failed to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner to .adduce his evidence is concerned, this is not found to be tenable. A perusal of the case file of Assistant Collector reveals that the present petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte on 7.8.2004 as he did not appear despite service of summons. He submitted an application on 13.9.2004 for setting aside ex-parte order passed against him which was accepted by the trial court on 18.9.2004. The petitioner was again proceeded against ex-parte on 1.12.2004 as neither the petitioner nor his counsel were present on that date. On the previous date of hearing i.e. 20.11.2004 the petitioner was represented through vice counsel Sh. Sudhir Gupta who filed a written statement stating that he had not yet got copies from the record room. Therefore, he was given last opportunity by the trial court. The counsel for the petitioner again filed an application on 30.12.2004 for 396 2010(1) Cur.L.J. (H.P.) setting aside ex-parte proceedings passed against him. This application was rejected by the trial Court on 18.2.2005 on the grounds that the petitioner has already availed the opportunity on 7.8.2004. From the above, it is manifest that the petitioner has been given adequate opportunity of being heard but he failed to avail the opportunity. Now it' does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that he has not been afforded due opportunity of being heard by the trial court. 6. The next plea of the petitioner is that the trial court has not followed the instructions issued by the Government regarding the demarcation of private lands touching Government lands. Now it' does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that he has not been afforded due opportunity of being heard by the trial court. 6. The next plea of the petitioner is that the trial court has not followed the instructions issued by the Government regarding the demarcation of private lands touching Government lands. Prima facie it is not disputed that the land of the petitioner abuts Government land and his encroachment has been found on Government land to the extent of 4 sq. meters on khasra No.143/2 as per tatima placed on the filed. The Financial Commissioner, H.P. had issued special instructions vide letter No. Rev. 2 F (9) 1/ 88 dated 9th November 1989 regarding demarcation of private lands touching Government lands or the boundaries of another estate. In para 3 of this letter, it has been specifically mentioned that the demarcation of private land touching Government lands and where the land to be demarcated touches or overlaps the boundaries of another estate, the demarcation shall be done by a Revenue Officer not below the rank of the Tehsildar exercising the powers of Assistant Collector 1st Grade. This letter of the Financial Commissioner (Reveue) was withdrawn by a subsequent letter No. Rev-D(A)2-1/97 dated 24th April, 1997 whereby the Naib-Tehsildars have also been authorized to conduct the demarcations of private lands touching Government land and where the lands to be demarcated touches or overlaps the boundaries of another estate. Needless to say, in the instant case these instructions of the Financial. Commissioner have been completely overlooked by the trial court and encroachment proceedings against the petitioner has been initiated merely on the report of halqua Patwari. This important aspect has been' ignored by the Collector while deciding the appeal filed before him and he is completely wrong in basing his decision on the ground that it was patwari's inherent duty to detect encroachments during his routine inspect on and the said encroachment had been duly verified by the Field Kanungo, Suresh Kumar v. State of H.P. 397 hence there was no procedural lapse in the detection of the encroachment. No doubt it is patwari's inherent duty to detect encroachments but at the same time, the above instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner should have been kept in mind by the Collector especially when the case before him was regarding encroachment on the Government land abutting the private land of the petitioner. 7. Keeping this in view and also because the learned Dy. D.A. (Revenue) for the State has not opposed the remand of the case to the Assistant Collector. I accept the recommendations of the Commissioner, Shimla Division, passed in revenue revision No. 265/2005 dated 22.7.2009 and, therefore set-aside the orders of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade passed in case No. 9 /13 A of 2004 dated 17.3.2005 and that of the Collector, sub-division Solan, passed in case No.42/8 of 2005 dated 23.8.2005. The matter is remanded to the Assistant Collector, Grade 1st Solan Tehsil to carry out fresh proceedings as per the law and in accordance with instructions in force. 8. Announced in open court today the 9th March, 2010. 9. Records of the lower courts be returned and case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion. M.R.B.