JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) That the order dated 28.12.2010 passed by the respondent No. 1 (P-17) in Revision Petition No. 205/2010 may very kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the Office Order dated 29.09.2010 (P-15) passed by the respondent No. 2 in case No. 32/2006 may very kindly be quashed and set aside. (iii) That the Office Order dated 13.09.2005 passed by the Settlement Collector, Kangra at Dharamshala (P-14) may very kindly be quashed and set aside. (iv) That the entire record pertaining to the case may very kindly be summoned from the respondents for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. (v) That any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also very kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that private respondents before this Court filed an application dated 23rd April, 2005 before competent revenue authority for correction of revenue entries pertaining to the land subject matter of this writ petition. In the application, it was mentioned that the land was earlier shown in the possession of their predecessors-in-interest and thereafter in the ownership and possession of the said respondents in jamabandis for the year 1970, 1986-87 and 1992-93. However, later on these entries were changed to their prejudice and accordingly correction of entries in the column of possession in their favour was requested for. Application so filed by them was allowed by Settlement Collector, Kangra at Dharamshala vide order dated 13.09.2005 (wrongly mentioned as 13.10.2005). This order was assailed by the present petitioner under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, who vide order dated 29.09.2010 (Annexure P-15), dismissed the same. While dismissing the appeal, learned Divisional Commissioner held as under: “Both the parties were summoned and record of lower Court has also been perused. Sh. R.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for appellant and Sh. J.C. Kaushal, Ld. counsel for respondents argued their case at length and they have also submitted written arguments and copies of various rulings. From the perusal of the copy of Fard Badar it is revealed that the entries of S/Sh. Sh. R.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for appellant and Sh. J.C. Kaushal, Ld. counsel for respondents argued their case at length and they have also submitted written arguments and copies of various rulings. From the perusal of the copy of Fard Badar it is revealed that the entries of S/Sh. Durga and Shivu sons of Sampuran S/o Ghanthu in equal share continued from the year 1965-66 as “Gair Morusi” and the said entries have been changed due to error as reserve pool. The field agency corrected the mistake by way of preparing fard badar and further the Settlement Collector has corrected the shares of the party according to their share. These entries have been made in favour of the heirs of Sh. Durga Dass and Sh. Shiv Ram. Rather Fard Badar is a process to correct the mistake and it is not a different order. I find no irregularity in the order of the Ld. Collector below. Hence this appeal is dismissed. Stay order granted by this Court on 23.01.2006 is also vacated. A copy of this order be sent to the Settlement Collector, Kangra at Dharamshala and Tehsildar, Hamirpur, (H.P.) for taking further necessary action. The file of this Court be consigned to General Record Room after due completion.” 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, the petitioner assailed the same by way of Revision Petition under Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh. Revision Petition so filed by him was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 28.12.2010. While dismissing the revision petition, it was held by the Revisional Authority that entries in revenue records were in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents since the year 1960-61 and after 40 years, the same could not have been re-opened, more so, when the land was classified as Shamlat or Government land. Learned Financial Commissioner further held that aggrieved party, if any, was the State of Himachal Pradesh and as such, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner called for no interference. Relevant extract of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) is quoted hereinbelow: “3. The respondents have filed caveat before this Court who were represented through their counsel. Arguments were herd on the previous date through counsels for both the parties and I have considered the same. Relevant extract of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) is quoted hereinbelow: “3. The respondents have filed caveat before this Court who were represented through their counsel. Arguments were herd on the previous date through counsels for both the parties and I have considered the same. On the basis of the arguments addressed by both the parties and perusal of the papers attached with the revision petition including the petition itself, it is clear that the entry in revenue records pertains back to the jamabandi of 1960-61 when certain changes were incorporated in the revenue records. After more than 40 years the same cannot be re-opened, more so when the land is classified as ‘Shamlat or Government land’. The aggrieved party, if any, is the State of H.P. and therefore the order passed by the lower court is valid and I see no reason to interfere at this stage. The revision petition is not admitted.” 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records appended with the pleadings by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is a matter of record that the land subject matter of the present writ petition was reflected in the possession of predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents in the jamabandi so prepared for the year 1965-66 and it continued to be so reflected till in the jamabandi for the year 1996-97 “Reserve Pool” was mentioned. For the correction of said entry an application was filed by the private respondents, which application of theirs was accepted by the Settlement Collector, Kangra vide order dated 13.09.2005. The contention of the petitioner that before the year 1965-66, land in issue was reflected in the ‘Maqvuja Malkan’ and this aspect of the matter has been ignored by the authority below, in my considered view, has no merit. I say so for the reason that jamabandi for the year 1965-66, in which the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners were reflected in the possession column as Gair Marousi was not challenged by the petitioner. This fact very fairly was not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments. I say so for the reason that jamabandi for the year 1965-66, in which the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners were reflected in the possession column as Gair Marousi was not challenged by the petitioner. This fact very fairly was not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments. It is further not disputed that entry in the column of possession earlier in favour of predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents and thereafter in favour of the private respondents continued uninterruptedly from 1965-66 up to the year 1996, when all of a sudden in the column of possession, the name of the private respondents was deleted and this grievance was highlighted by the private respondents before the appropriate revenue authority, who corrected the same as the name of private respondents was deleted from the said column on account of an error so committed by the field agency while preparing Fard Badar. Therefore, what the learned Settlement Collector did was that it corrected the mistake committed by field agency which had crept in the revenue records while preparing the Fard Badar. When initially the names of the predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents were reflected in the revenue record in the year 1965-66, the same were not assailed by the petitioners. In this background, the petitioner was having no locus to assail order dated 13.09.2005 passed in Fard Badar No. 1 by Settlement Collector, Kangra. Further, as entries in favour of private respondents were altered by mistake by the field agency, corrections so carried out in the revenue record by the Settlement Collector, Kangra, even otherwise cannot be termed to be bad in law. Findings returned by both the learned authorities below which stand assailed by way of the present writ petition thus suffer from no infirmity. Besides this, learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly held that aggrieved party, if any, is the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who has not assailed the entries in favour of private respondents. Further, findings returned by the learned Financial Commissioner that entries existing in favour of private respondents for the last 40 years even otherwise do not call for any interference, in my considered view, are also correct findings and there is no infirmity in the same. 7. Therefore, as there is no merit in the present writ petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.