JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.:- The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 23.04.2014 whereby challenge to the orders of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner setting aside the order of the correction of the khasra girdawari remain unsuccessful. 2. The appellants filed application for correction of khasra girdawari from Kharif 2010-2011 onwards. Such application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Pehowa on 24.07.2013 but the appeal was allowed by the Collector. Such order of the Collector was set aside by the Commissioner, which order was affirmed by the Financial Commissioner. 3. The learned Financial Commissioner has returned a finding that there is no proof to show that the appellants are in cultivating possession of the land and that spot inspection has not been done by Patwari in the presence of the private respondents. 4. We find that invocation of jurisdiction of this Court seeking correction of khasra girdawari is wholly mis-conceived and is wastage of public time, more so, when the civil suit in respect of the land in question is pending at the instance of the appellants. It is settled that the Khasra Girdawaris are not documents which carries presumption of correctness in terms of Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Suhag Wanti Vs. Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others, 2013(1) Civil Court Cases 100. In the aforesaid case, the question examined was whether during the pendency of regular civil suit, involving question of title and possession, revenue authorities have any jurisdiction to conduct spot inspection to change the entries in the khasra girdawari. The finding returned is that the revenue authorities have jurisdiction to inspect the spot and to change the khasra girdawari. 6. The consistent finding of the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner is that Patwari has not given notice to the private respondents before effecting change in khasra girdawri at the time of spot inspection. Since no notice was given, the report of the Patwari, the basis of the order passed by the Collector is wholly unjustified and has been rightly set aside. The persistent of the appellants to seek correction in the entries in the Khasra Girdawaris, which carry no presumption of correctness, shows that he is abusing the process of law. Since no notice was given, the report of the Patwari, the basis of the order passed by the Collector is wholly unjustified and has been rightly set aside. The persistent of the appellants to seek correction in the entries in the Khasra Girdawaris, which carry no presumption of correctness, shows that he is abusing the process of law. The judgment referred to by the appellants deals with the jurisdiction to amend the khasra girdawari. But, whether such girdawaris are required to be corrected or not is a question of fact. The said question has been found against the appellants. 7. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. The costs be deposited in Haryana State Legal Services Authority within one month. ----------------