JUDGMENT 1. This is a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 16.4.2014 passed by commissioner, Faridkot Division and dated 28.1.2013 passed by collector, Faridkot, in the matter of correction of khasra girdawari. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Dhan Singh filed an application for correction of khasra girdawari of land measauring 1 kanals 10 marlas situated in village Hariewala, Tehsil and District Faridkot. The Assistant Collector Grade-II, Fadrikot, after visiting the spot in the presence of the parties and respectables of the village corrected the khasra girdawari of the land in the name of Dhan Singh vide his order dated 4.4.2012 with the observation that though the land in disputes is Gair Mumkin Abadi but at the spot Dhan Singh has planted Eucalyptus (Safeda) Trees and sown vegetables. Aggrieved with this order Gurdit Singh filed an appeal before Collector, Faridkot, who vide order dated 28.1.2013 accepted the same and set aside the order of Assistant Collector Grade-II. Against this order, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner on 16.4.2014, leading to the present revision. 3. I have head counsel for the petitioner and examined the file. Petitioner’s case is that the impugned order is bad because it fails to implement instructions regarding recording of crops inspection (khasra girdawari) which require the revenue officer to inspect the site and record the name of the cultivator. In this case the Assistant Collector Grade-II had done that and recorded petitioner’s possession as cultivator of this land measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas. Assistant Collector Grade-II had visited the site and observed that petitioner had grown Eucalyptus trees, which proved his possession for several years. However, the collector in appeal had set aside Assistant Collector Grade-II’s order, the Collector’s order has been confirmed by the Commissioner in the impugned order as follows:- “From perusal of record it stands amply proved that the land in question was purchased by Jangir Singh, father of the respondent in the year 1971 and he had also taken possession of the same and remaining land was purchased by the respondent on 12.12.2003 and he also obtained possession of the same, regarding which there are recitals in the sale deeds. A perusal of record also goes to show that khasra girdawri entries of the land in question are being made in the name of respondent and that the appellant had purchased land through registered sale deeds on 2.6.2010 and 22.6.2010 and in the said sale deeds it has been specifically mentioned that vendor had not delivered possession of any specific khasra number to him. Moreover, as per revenue record the vendor, who said the land in the appellant, was not in possession of the land in question and therefore, possession of the land in question cannot be said to have been delivered to the appellant. In these circumstances, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 28.12.2013, passed by Collector Sub Division (S.D.M), Faridkot and as such the same is up-held and consequently this appeal is dismissed, being without any merit.” 4. These facts have not been denied or contravened by counsel for petitioner. Based on these facts, the impugned order has correctly upheld the collector’s order in appeal setting aside Assistant Collector Grade-II’s order of Darusti Girdawari. In addition, I find that Assistant Collector Grade-II’s order suffers from a defect that it pertains to land recorded as uncultivable habitation (gair mumkin abadi) in the revenue record. As such, it falls outside the purview of khasra girdawri (crop inspection) unless the classification of land is changed. Assistant Collector Grade-II’s observation that eucalyptus trees were planted on the land and some vegetables were cultivated, does not suffice. It could well be the case that there are habitable structures on this land with some trees and a vegetable patch/garden. Thus, an order regarding khasra girdawari for such gair-mumkin land, without first establishing that it needs to be re-classified as cultivable land, is void. 5. In these circumstances the impugned order is upheld and petition dismissed, in limine. Announced.