Order: Present civil writ petition filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of Constitution of India assailing the correctness and validity of order dated 28.12.2013 passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh Camp at Mandi in Revenue Appeal No. 8 of 2011, titled Chandermani and others vs. Ghamanda Ram and others. 2. Brief facts of the matter as pleaded in civil writ petition are that during the settlement operations in Mandi district during the year 1964-65 Shri Dhani Ram and Shri Twaru the predecessors-in-interst of the appellants and respondents were found to be in an unauthorized occupation of Government land comprised Khasra numbers old 265 and 263 new 247 and 249 situated in village Phagwar (Tehsil) Chachiot (District) Mandi HP. It is pleaded that on dated 26th March, 1971 the Settlement Officer passed an ejectment order under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act in case No. 5907/S.O. It is further pleaded that on 3rd March 1979 feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Settlement Officer Shri Dhari Ram @ Dhani Ram filed an appeal before the Commissioner Shimla Division and it is pleaded that notices were issued to the respondents and during the pendency of appeal Shri Twaru died and legal representatives of the deceased Twaru Ram were brought on record and notices were issued to them, who were served but none appeared on their behalf and they were proceeded ex-parte. It is pleaded that on 23rd December 1985 after hearing the parties and perusing the entire record learned Commissioner Shimla allowed the appeal and observed that appellants were in physical possession of the land in question since 1955 and considering their long standing possession of the land learned Commissioner Shimla Division ordered that proprietary rights of the land bearing Khasra No. 263 and 265 measuring 9-6-8 bighas situated in village Phagwar Tehsil Chachiot District Mandi be granted to the petitioners subject to the payment of current market price to be assessed by the Tehsildar concerned on the basis of one year’s average sales of similar land in the estate. It is further pleaded that after passing the order dated 23.12.1985 present petitioners deposited the payment of land so assessed by the Tehsildar concerned and thereafter mutation to this effect was passed in favour of the petitioners qua the land in question. It is further pleaded that after passing the order dated 23.12.1985 present petitioners deposited the payment of land so assessed by the Tehsildar concerned and thereafter mutation to this effect was passed in favour of the petitioners qua the land in question. It is further pleaded that on 15.7.2011 respondents No. 1 to 8 filed an appeal against order dated 23rd December, 1985 passed by learned Commissioner, Shimla. It is also pleaded that on 28th December, 2013 learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and directed that on the concept of equity and in the ends of justice ownership of half share qua land comprised in Khasra Number old 263, 265 new 247, 249 be conferred upon LRs of Twaru Ram subject to payment of half amount of the assessed market value to LRs of Dhani Ram alias Dhari Ram. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the order of learned Financial Commissioner passed in Revenue Appeal No. 8 of 2011, petitioners filed the present civil writ petition pleaded therein that learned Financial Commissioner misinterpreted the provision of law and it is also pleaded that learned Financial Commissioner has committed serious illegality while passing the impugned order dated 28th December, 2013. It is pleaded that order was passed on assumption and presumption. It is pleaded that matter was agitated before learned Financial Commissioner after 25 years. It is pleaded that learned Financial Commissioner has also condoned delay illegally in filing the appeal. Prayer for acceptance of civil writ petition sought. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 5. We are of the view that fact of joint possession of Dhari Ram and Twaru Ram in Government land in equal share over Khasra Nos. 263 and 265, Kita 2 measuring 9-6-8 bighas is corroborated from the copy of Misal Haquiat Bandobast Jadid of Mohal Phaghwar Tehsil Chachiot District Mandi and also corroborated from subsequent jamabandis prepared thereafter. Even during the consolidation operation in the area in the Misal Haquiat for the year 1993-94 of Mauza Phangwar prepared by the Consolidation staff unauthorized possession of both Dhari Ram and Twaru were reflected over Khasra No. 265 and 263 corresponding to new Khasra Nos. 247 and 249 respectively and same entry was also recorded in subsequent jamabandi for the year 1996-97. 247 and 249 respectively and same entry was also recorded in subsequent jamabandi for the year 1996-97. It is well settled law that presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record unless it is rebutted in accordance with law. The possession of Twaru Ram to the extent of ½ share has not been challenged by Dhari Ram or his successors-in-interest till date. We are of the opinion that granting proprietary right to Shri Dhari Ram alone upon the entire land comprised in Khasra No. 263 and 265 (new Khasra Nos. 247 and 249) resulted in gross injustice to Twaru Ram and his legal representatives. We are of the opinion that Twaru and his legal representatives are legally entitled to for the conferment of ownership rights to the extent of ½ shares upon land comprised in old Khasra Nos. 263 and 265 and new Khasra Nos. 247 and 249 against market value already assessed by the competent authority. Learned Financial Commissioner had ordered that legal representatives of Twaru Ram will refund to the legal representatives of Dhani Ram @ Dhari Ram the half amunt of the assessed market value already paid by them to the Government. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that learned Financial Commissioner has condoned the delay in illegal manner is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that parties are rustic villagers. It is proved on record that Dhani Ram and Twaru both were in settled possession of property in dispute in equal share. Learned Financial Commissioner on concept of equity and ends of justice ordered that legal representatives of Dhani Ram and Twaru will acquire ownership rights equally. It is well settled law that limitation starts when right to sue accrues to aggrieved party for the first time. In present case, right to sue accrued to aggrieved party when they came to know that entire property in dispute vested in Dhani Ram and his legal representatives. It was held in case reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 Co ector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and others vs. Mst. Katiji and others that (1) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Katiji and others that (1) Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) Every day’s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. (4) When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against eachother cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 7. In view of the above stated facts, we hold that order of learned Financial Commissioner announced in Revenue Appeal No. 8 of 2011, titled Chandermani vs. Ghamanda Ram and others decided on 28th December 2013 is not illegal nor perverse and we also hold that on the concept of parity and equity and in the ends of justice the order of learned Financial Commissioner is not contrary to law and contrary to the proved facts. Hence civil writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any force and disposed of as such. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.