ORDER Narinder Chauhan, I.A.S. —This revision petition under section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), is directed against the order dated 5.4.2011, passed by the Id. Commissioner, Kangra Division, in Appeal No.39/2005, whereby the appeal of the present petitioners has been dismissed by upholding the order dated 26.12.2003, passed by the Id. Settlement Collector, Kangra in case No.22/03/S.O., who has partly allowed the application for correction of entries in the revenue record, filed by the present petitioner No. 1, Shri Budhi Singh. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case that Shri Budhi Singh, present petitioner no. 1 filed an application before the Settlement Collector, Kangra at Dharamshala on 22.5.1995, for correction of revenue entries (Karukans) qua the land comprised in khasra no.662 and 662/1 (carved out of old khasra no 339), area measuring 0-04-59 hect., situated in Mahal Jhikli, Mauza Ambari, Tehsil & Distt Kangra, stating therein that during settlement operation the area of khasra nos 662 and 662/1 (new) measuring 0-04-59 hect. carved out of old khasra no 339, measuring 1-6 kanals has been reduced by 0-2 marlas as compared to 0-04-98 hect. due to wrong conversion of karans to meters. The matter was got enquired into through the field staff of settlement. On receipt of the filed reports, the Settlement Collector vide order dated 26.12.2003, passed in Missal No.22/03/S.O., partly allowed the application observing as follows:- 3. Feeling aggrieved with the above order dated 26.12.2003 passed by the Settlement Collector, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Kangra Division inter alia on the grounds that the Settlement Collector has ignored the detailed report of the Kanungo and without any reason and justification deputed Tehsildar Kangra, to visit the spot. That the Tehsildar without vesting the spot made his report dated 7.8.2003 and acted wholly contrary to spot position, old revenue record and the report of the Kanungo and recommended that an area of 0-00-16 hect. Bearing khasra no.660/1 be provided to the appellants/petitioners. That the perusal of the order 26.12.2003 of the Settlement Collector shows that he has not discussed the report of the Field Kanungo while deciding the application. That the proceedings have been carried out ignoring all the provisions of law. Bearing khasra no.660/1 be provided to the appellants/petitioners. That the perusal of the order 26.12.2003 of the Settlement Collector shows that he has not discussed the report of the Field Kanungo while deciding the application. That the proceedings have been carried out ignoring all the provisions of law. The report of Tehsildar has been reproduced and approved without assigning any reasoning, the matter has been decided in the absence of parties without providing, an opportunity of being heard After hearing the parties, the Id. Commissioner, vide order dated 5.4.23011, dismissed the appeal No.39/2005 by upholding the orders of the Collector Settlement. Hence, This revision petition has been preferred before this court on the same grounds as were taken before the Commissioner. 4. I have heard the Id. Counsel for both the parties. Ld. counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the grounds of the revision petition, argued that the application for correction of khasra no. 662 and 662/1, carved doubt of old khasra no.339 area measuring 1-6 kanals, should have been 0-04-59 hects. Ld counsel further averred that the eastern boundary of khasra no.339 was 9 karam which should be 13 meters in metric system but the settlement staff has measured it as 11 meters. That the Kanungo who visited the spot has recommended correction in favour of the petitioner but the Tehsildar visited the spot and recommended correction involving just 0-00-16 hect. Whereas the deficiency in area is of 0-00-46 hect. Ld. Counsel also asserted that the orders of the Id. Settlement Collector are against the factual position on the spot and have been passed in the absence of the parties without providing an opportunity of being heard and the Id. Commissioner has also erred in upholding the wrong order of the Settlement Collector Therefore, the Id. Counsel urged that the revision petition is liable to be accepted and the matter may be remanded to the Settlement Collector for fresh hearing. 5. In reply, Id. counsel for the respondents argued that the Tehsildar(Settlement), has inspected the spot and recommended correction in favour of petitioner by providing them khasra no.660/1 measuring 0-00-16 hect. And this report has never been challenged by the petitioner, hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the arguments of the Id. Counsels for both the parties and have gone through the record of the courts below. And this report has never been challenged by the petitioner, hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the arguments of the Id. Counsels for both the parties and have gone through the record of the courts below. On perusal of the case file of the Settlement Collector, it is disclosed that on filing of an application for correction of revenue entries, the matter has been got inquired into through the Kanungo as well as the Tehsildar(Settlement). The Kanungo in his report dated 8 4.1997(available at page 22 of the file of SO ), had suggested correction in khasra no 660/1, to the extent of area measuring 0-00-45 hect. By deleting it form the khata of the respondents and to be entered in the khata of the present petitioners But, in the report of the Tehsildar dated 7.8.2003(available at page 27), it has been recommended that correction of the same khasra no. 660/1 be made to the extent of area measuring 0-00-16 hect. only in favour of the present petitioners The record further discloses that on receipt of the reports, the Id. Settlement Collector, has relied upon the report of Tehsildar(Settlement) only and has passed the order dated 26.1.2.2003 without providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties. Further, it has not been disclosed as to why the report of Kanungo has not been relied upon. It is settled principle of law that one cannot be condemned unheard and basic principle of natural justice i.e. audi alterum partum have to be adhered. However, in the instant case, the Id. Settlement Collector, has violated this basic principle of natural justice while passing orders dated 26 12.2003. The Id. Commissioner has ignored this legal and important aspect while deciding the appeal of the present petitioners, vide order dated 7. In view of the above, since there is a basic impropriety/illegality having been committed by both the courts below by not providing an opportunity of being heard to the interested parties as such, the present revision petition, is allowed and the orders passed by both the courts below are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Id. Settlement Collector, Kangra adjudication fresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the interested parties. 8. Order be communicated. The matter is remanded to the Id. Settlement Collector, Kangra adjudication fresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the interested parties. 8. Order be communicated. The records of the courts below be returned and the file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.