JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- (a) That the order dated 12.6.2007, Annexure-P/11 be ordered to be quashed and the classification of land in respect of khasra No. 237 situated in Up-Mohal Jakhu, Station Ward Chhota Shimla be ordered to be restored as were recorded at the time of recent settlement operations. (b) Any other writ, order or direction which in the facts and circumstances of the case is found fit and proper, may also be passed and made in the interest of justice. 2. In the present case, the petitioner i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh is aggrieved with the order dated 12.6.2007(Annexure P-11), passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), while exercising its revisionary jurisdiction under Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (in short “Act”), whereby the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner directed the Revenue Authorities to correct the entry of classification of the land in dispute from “Van” to its original classification i.e. “ Gair Mumkin Ahata”. 3. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), petitioner filed Writ Petition before this Court seeking quashment of the order passed by learned Financial Commissioner. 4. “ Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondents moved an application in the Court of Settlement Collector, Shimla vide case No.1/98 on 19.1.2008, praying therein that land comprised khasra No.237 (new), which has been recorded in the ownership of Smt. Santoshwati, Smt. Usha Rani and Smt. Monika Butail in the revenue record, the classification of the land has been recorded as “Van” instead of “Gair Mumkin Ahata” and, as such, the classification of the land may be recorded as “Ahata” in the revenue records. Respondents also pleaded that since they are paying tax of this land to the Municipal Corporation, Shimla for the last 25 years and, as such, action of revenue authorities to change the classification of land from “Gair Mumkin Ahata” to “Van” is illegal. 5. Record further reveals that the Settlement Collector sent the case to Settlement Naib Tehsildar, Shimla for spot enquiry and report. Accordingly, Naib Tehsildar Settlement and Assistant Settlement had recommended the case for correction as per Naksha Tafawat. 5. Record further reveals that the Settlement Collector sent the case to Settlement Naib Tehsildar, Shimla for spot enquiry and report. Accordingly, Naib Tehsildar Settlement and Assistant Settlement had recommended the case for correction as per Naksha Tafawat. Though, the perusal of the order dated 23.11.1998, passed by Settlement Collector on the application moved by the petitioner for correction of the classification of the land suggest that there was difference of opinion with regard to change of classification of land in respect of khasra number referred hereinabove( Revenue Authorities itself) because this order itself reveals that the Assistant Settlement Officer, Shimla, who was sent for spot inspection at first instance reported that the classification of land in respect of khasra Nos. 237/3, 237/5, 237/7, 237/9, kita 4 measuring 1881-66 is correct as “Jai Safed” as per spot and tatima in respect of these khasra numbers. However, authorities did not agree with the report submitted by the aforesaid Settlement Collector and observed that the classification of land in respect of Khasra Nos. 237/1, 237/2, 237/4, 237/6, 237/8 kita 5, measuring 1551-79 is correct as “Van” as per spot. Due to differences in the reports of Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar, matter was taken afresh and earlier orders passed by the Tehsildar were reversed and it was held that the classification of land as “Van” has been correctly recorded during recent settlement due to the reasons that there are “Deodar” and “Ban” trees. 6. Feeling aggrieved with the order dated 23.11.1998, passed by the Settlement Collector, Shimla, respondent Smt. Usha Butail filed an appeal under Section 14 of the Land Revenue Act (Annexure P-6) before Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, who vide order dated 6.2.1999 allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent and held that no change of classification, which has such a material effect on the enjoyment of their rights should have taken place without hearing the appellants and understanding the position. He directed the Settlement Collector to restore the classification of the land to its original position in the revenue record and set-aside the order passed by learned Settlement Collector, Shimla. 7. However, present petitioner feeling aggrieved with this order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division in Revenue appeal, filed Revenue Review No.24 of 1999 ( Annexure P-7), praying therein that the review of order dated 6.2.1999. 7. However, present petitioner feeling aggrieved with this order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division in Revenue appeal, filed Revenue Review No.24 of 1999 ( Annexure P-7), praying therein that the review of order dated 6.2.1999. The Commissioner, Shimla Division, taking note of the averments contained in the review petition did not agree with the submissions made by the present petitioner and held that the review petition is not maintainable and dismissed the same on 22.3.1999. 8. Present petitioner feeling aggrieved with the order dated 22.3.1999, filed Revenue Revision in the Court of Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh Shimla, assailing therein the order passed by Divisional Commissioner, Shimla in Revenue Appeal No.4/1999 on 6.2.1999. It is urged on behalf of the present petitioner before the Financial Commissioner that the order passed by Settlement Collector, Shimla, whereby decision of the Revenue authority in correcting the classification of land as “Van” was correct and in accordance with the rules in vogue. It appears that at the time of passing of the impugned order, present petitioner brought to the notice of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) that there is one notification (Annexure P-4), wherein classification as “Gair Mumkin Ahata” has been defined. According to which, the land surrounding the government buildings are defined as ““Gair Mumkin Ahata” and “Van” has been defined as that land owned by the estate right holders on which there are trees. Present petitioner also submitted that there are 50-60 Deodar trees standing on the land in question, therefore, the classification of land during the settlement operation of the area as per spot position has been rightly reflected as “Van” in the settlement record. He also submitted that the trees were spread over the entire land in question; therefore, the land in question has to be classified as “Van” only in view of the notification Annexure P-4. 9. Perusal of the order passed by Financial Commissioner also suggest that the learned counsel representing the respondents submitted that the learned Financial Commissioner has rightly restored the classification of the land as “ Gair Mumkin Ahata” because admittedly long standing classification could not be changed by the Settlement Staff during settlement operation. 9. Perusal of the order passed by Financial Commissioner also suggest that the learned counsel representing the respondents submitted that the learned Financial Commissioner has rightly restored the classification of the land as “ Gair Mumkin Ahata” because admittedly long standing classification could not be changed by the Settlement Staff during settlement operation. However, he also in alternatively suggested that only that much land should have been classified as “Van”, on which the trees are concentrated and not the entire land as classification of entire land, where even trees are not standing, would cause great injustice to him and he would be unable to raise any construction over that part also. Learned Finance Commissioner, however, allowed the revision petition filed by the present petitioner specifically observing therein that the admission by the counsel for the respondent himself that the land is partly occupied by the trees is indicative of the spot, which according to Collector Settlement are adequate enough to classify the entire area as “Van”. Learned Finance Commissioner, while allowing the revision petition filed by the present petitioner held that since land is largely covered by the trees, there is no alternative but to maintain the classification of the land as “Van” as entered by the Settlement Staff during the settlement operations. 10. Present respondent dissatisfied with the order dated 17.5.2000 passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals) approached this Court by way of CWP No.36 of 2001. This Court vide order dated 17th April 2007 challenging therein the order dated 17.5.2000 passed the following directions:- “Admittedly, the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) was bound to consider the guidelines for making entries in respect of forest and jungle at the time of settlement or after settlement in the land records. Accordingly, the order of Financial Commissioner (Appeals), dated 17.5.2000 is set aside and the case is remanded back with the direction to the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh to pass fresh order after taking into consideration the guidelines dated 22nd April, 2000. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to decide the matter within one month from today. To avoid delay, the parties are directed to make themselves available before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 24th May, 2007.” “In the eventuality of the final order being passed in favour of the petitioner by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), the other consequential steps be taken to redress the grievance of the petitioner”. 11. To avoid delay, the parties are directed to make themselves available before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 24th May, 2007.” “In the eventuality of the final order being passed in favour of the petitioner by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), the other consequential steps be taken to redress the grievance of the petitioner”. 11. Perusal of the order dated 17.4.2007 suggests that during the proceedings of this case (CWP No. 36 of 2001), attention of the Court was invited to Annexure P- 3/1 dated 22nd April, 2000 i.e. Annexure P-10 along with English translation version. This Court taking note of instructions issued by State of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 22.4.2000, set-aside the order of Financial Commissioner (Appeals), dated 17.5.2000 and remanded the case back to the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to pass fresh order after taking into consideration the guidelines dated 22nd April, 2000 and to decide the matter within a period of one month. 12. Accordingly, in terms of the remand order passed by this Court in CWP No. 36/2001, dated 17.4.2007, Financial Commissioner heard the matter afresh and after taking note of contentions raised on behalf of both the parties as well as latest instructions i.e. Annexure P-10, dismissed the revision petition preferred by present petitioner-State and directed Revenue Authorities to correct the entry of classification of land in dispute from “Van” to its original classification i.e. “Gair Mumkin Ahata”. 13. A bare perusal of this order suggests that main petition CWP No. 36/2001 was kept pending by this Court at the time of passing order dated 14.4.2007. However, during arguments in the present case it was informed by Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General that the petition CWP No.36/2001 stands disposed of. 14. In the aforesaid background, the present petitioner-State has filed present petition, assailing therein the order dated 12.6.2007, passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals). 15. Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General representing the petitioner vehemently argued that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable in the eye of law since the same is totally contrary to the rules and settlement manual. He forcibly contended that the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to acknowledge the fact that the inspection report made by the Tehsildar Settlement, wherein it was specifically reported that there are approximately 50-60 Deodar and Ban trees in the land in question. He forcibly contended that the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to acknowledge the fact that the inspection report made by the Tehsildar Settlement, wherein it was specifically reported that there are approximately 50-60 Deodar and Ban trees in the land in question. He also urged that keeping in view the spot inspection report of the Field Agency, which duly prove on the face of the record that the land in question could not be ordered to be recorded as “Gair Mumkin Ahata” instead of “Van” and, as such, the order passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 16. Mr. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, strenuously argued that the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) while rejecting the revision petition filed by the State has wrongly interpreted instructions dated 22.4.2000 (Annexure-P/10), because careful reading of the same leaves no doubt that even clause 5 of the said instructions empowers the revenue authorities to carry out the correction in the classification of land, which was changed in the new settlement contrary to the old settlement. 17. Mr. Rajnish K. Lall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supported the order passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that it is based on the correct appreciation of the notification issued by the State itself. Mr. Rajnish, learned counsel, submitted that Settlement Collector, Shimla while passing the order dated 23.11.1998 has failed to take note of the fact that for the last 25 years respondents have been paying ground tax to the Municipal Corporation, Shimla and in old settlement the land in question was recorded as “Gair Mumkin Ahata” not “Van”, rather revenue authorities without hearing the respondents changed the classification of the land from “Gair Mumkin Ahata” to “Van” that too without any justification. During arguments, he invited the attention of the Court to the order passed by the Settlement Collector, Shimla dated 23.11.1998 to indicate that even the revenue authorities itself had come to the conclusion that the change of the classification of land is not as per the spot tatima in respect of Khasra Nos.237/3, 237/5, 237/7, 237/9, kita 4, measuring 1881-66. He also invited attention of the Court to the instructions issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh on 22.4.2000, wherein certain directions were issued to the field agency to carry out correction with regard to the entries during settlement. 18. He also invited attention of the Court to the instructions issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh on 22.4.2000, wherein certain directions were issued to the field agency to carry out correction with regard to the entries during settlement. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record available on record. 19. It clearly emerges from the various documents available on record that the present respondent is the owner in possession of the land comprised khasra No.237 (new), (khasra No.409 prior to settlement), situated in mohal Station Ward Chotta Shimla and the classification of the land was earlier “Gair Mumkin Ahata”, which was allegedly changed to “Van”. Careful perusal of the pleadings available on record suggest that it has been consistent stand of the petitioner that though the land earlier was entered as “Gair Mumkin Ahata” but same has been rightly re-classified as “Van” solely for the reason that there are 50-60 Deodar trees standing upon the land in question, meaning thereby that in the present petition petitioner/ State has nowhere disputed that in old settlement classification of land in question was entered as “Gair Mumkin Ahata”, which as per the version of the respondents was changed to “Van”. Perusal of Annexure P-4 i.e communication dated 27.1.1989 suggest that earlier State of Himachal Pradesh had taken decision that any land on which trees of any type are standing would be termed as “Van”, whereas lands surrounded Government building would be termed as “Gair Mumkin Ahata” However, perusal of Annexure P-10 i.e communication dated 22.4.2000 suggest that the State of Himachal Pradesh taking into consideration difficulties being faced by the people, issued fresh notification, wherein certain directions were issued to the field Staff to be followed during the settlement. The instructions contained in Annexure P-10 are reproduced as under:- 1. Where the entry of ‘Van’ or ‘Trees’ is not recorded in the last Settlement, in that case the entry of ‘Van’ or’ Trees’ should not be made. 2. If the change has been made in the entries during Settlement, in that case, the entries recorded in the last Settlement be restored. 3. ‘Charagah’ should not be written as ‘Charagah Billa Drakhtan’ or ‘Charagah Drakhtan’ but should be entered only as ‘Charagah’. 4. The entries of Reserve Forest, Demarcated Protected Forest and Un-Demarcated Forest should be entered as per notification. 5. 3. ‘Charagah’ should not be written as ‘Charagah Billa Drakhtan’ or ‘Charagah Drakhtan’ but should be entered only as ‘Charagah’. 4. The entries of Reserve Forest, Demarcated Protected Forest and Un-Demarcated Forest should be entered as per notification. 5. Where the classification of above land has been changed in the new Settlement contrary to the old Settlement that may be implemented through note in the remarks column Misal Haquiat to every subsequent Jamabandi.” 20. Clause one (1) of this instruction makes it clear that, wherever ‘Van’ or ‘Trees’ is not recorded in the last settlement, in that case the entry of ‘Van’ or ‘Trees’ should not be incorporated and if the change, if any, has been made in the entries during the settlement, then revenue authority is under an obligation to restore the entries, which was recorded in last settlement. 21. In the present case also it is admitted case of the parties that land in question was recorded as “Gair Mumkin Ahata” in last settlement, which was subsequently on the report of revenue agency that there are 50-60 Deodar trees standing on the land, classification of lands was changed to “Van” that too without affording an opportunity of being heard to the present respondents. Admittedly, the letter dated 22.4.2000 has been issued by the present petitioner and there is no document available on record to suggest that the aforesaid communication has been withdrawn by the State, meaning thereby instructions circulated vide order dated 22.4.2000 are still in operation. 22. Careful perusal of the aforesaid instructions leaves no doubt in the mind of this Court that the present petitioner was bound to follow these instructions in its letter and spirit. Moreover, vide order dated 17.4.2007, passed by this Court in CWP No.36/2001,this Court had come to the conclusion that the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) was bound to consider the guidelines dated 22.4.2000 for making entries in respect of nature of land at the time of settlement or after settlement in the land records. The aforesaid findings returned by this Court has admittedly attained finality because no appeal whatsoever, was preferred before the Division Bench of this Court, specifically challenging therein the observation of the Court, where the Court came to the conclusion that the “Financial Commissioner (Appeals) was bound to consider the guidelines dated 22nd April, 2000”. 23. Mr. The aforesaid findings returned by this Court has admittedly attained finality because no appeal whatsoever, was preferred before the Division Bench of this Court, specifically challenging therein the observation of the Court, where the Court came to the conclusion that the “Financial Commissioner (Appeals) was bound to consider the guidelines dated 22nd April, 2000”. 23. Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that the instructions dated 22nd April, 2000 cannot over ride the statutory provisions i.e. Settlement manual. The aforesaid submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General appears to have no basis especially in view of the instructions dated 22nd April, 2000, which clearly suggests that even Government was aware and conscious of the difficulties being faced by the people in this regard that’s why instructions dated 22.4.2000 were issued. He submitted that even clause-5 of the condition of these instructions dated 22nd April, 2000 suggest that the revenue authorities are empowered to change the classification of the land, if the same has been wrongly recorded in the new settlement by giving remarks in column in the Misal Haquiat i.e. subsequent jamabandi Aforesaid submission of learned Additional Advocate General cannot be accepted because careful reading of clause (5) suggest that revenue staff has been directed/instructed to correct entries of new settlement, which have been made contrary to the old settlement. In the present case, admittedly land of the respondent was recorded as “Gair Mumkin Ahata” which has been allegedly change to ‘Van’ in the new settlement and, as such, as per the condition No.5, respondents are bound to correct the subsequent change made in the new settlement and restore the position as it was in the old settlement. 24. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not see any illegality and infirmity in the order passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), which is based on the instructions dated 22nd April, 2000, admittedly issued by the present petitioner. The present petition is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any.