ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred under section 14 of the H.P.L,and Revenue Act, 1954(hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), against the order dated 10-03-2010, passed by the Ld. Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Appeal No. 77/2004-titled as Ajay Kumar & Ors. v. Smt. Sarjeevan Kanta & Ors , whereby the Id. Commissioner had accepted the appeal of the present respondent and remanded the matter to the Collector Settlement, Kangra with the direction to visit the spot and decide the matter afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 2. The brief facts of the case as derived from the perusal of the appeal and documents available on the case file of Id. Commissioner, Kangra Division are that the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant was recorded as owner in possession of the land bearing Khasra no. 1871 along with other land, situated in Up-Mahal Una, Tehsil & Distt. Una, during the last settlement vide order dated 22.2.1984 passed by the Settlement Collector in case Misal No. 37/84-S.O.Dharamshala. Prior to settlement operations, this land was recorded as ''abadi deh''. The present respondent filed an appeal against the order dated 22.2.1984 (copy not available) before the Id. Commissioner, Kangra Division, on the ground that the land in question (kh. No. 1871 area measuring 19-25sq,mtrs)is in their exclusive ownership and possession but contrary to the record and the spot position, the same has been ordered to be entered in the ownership and possession of the present appellant without any thorough investigation and proper inquiry. That predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent namely Shri Rameshwar Chand son of Rania Ram had purchased this Khasra no. along with Khasra no. 1873,1874 and 1875 from Shri Naresh kumar vide sale deed no. 1160 dated 15.10.1980 and thereafter constructed a three storied house thereon. The Id. Commissioner has allowed the appeal vide the order dated 10.3.2010 passed in appeal no. 77/2004 and remanded the matter to the Settlement collector, Kangra with the direction to decide the same afresh after visiting the spot and providing an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 3. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.3.2010, on the grounds that the lower court has erred by entertaining the appeal without relying on the record of the lower court as it has been revealed that the same has been weeded out. 3. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.3.2010, on the grounds that the lower court has erred by entertaining the appeal without relying on the record of the lower court as it has been revealed that the same has been weeded out. Further that even certified copy of order under challenge was not available/attached with the appeal. In support of this contention, the appellant has cited the case of '' Harminder Singh v. Darshana Devi, 2005(2) SLJ, 1231 " in which it has been held that the matter could not be adjudicated upon in appeal without having perused the case file of the order under appeal. It has further been submitted that appellant has purchased land bearing khewat No. 149, Khasra no. 1871, situated in the Urban Estate of Una, Tehsil and Distt. Una, from Smt. Nirmal Kamari w/o Kirti Kant Bali, who is recorded as owner in possession of land in question including Khasra no. 1872,1892, and 1895, vide registered sale deed dated 27.10.1998 and the same is in the shape of a constructed structure. That the respondents are owner of adjoining khasra nos. 1873, 1874 and 1875. That the ''abadi deh'' area of Una was measured and filed in respect of Khasra No. 1871,1872,1892 and 1895, which were carved out of old Khasra no. 3237 were recorded in favour of Smt. Kalawati wife of Sh. Rulia Ram half share and Kirti Kant, half share. That Smt. Kalwati made a gift in favour of Sh. Kirti Kant and later on Shri Kirti Kant gifted the same in favour of his wife Smt. Nirmal Kumar, who sold the same to the appellant vide registered sale deed dated 27.10.1998. That the respondent has not impleaded the original owners as necessary party but despite all these facts, the Id. Commissioner has allowed the appeal of the present respondent vide order dated 10.3.2010 passed in Appeal No. 77/2004. 4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of appeal, argued that land in question i.e. Khasra no. 1871, was part of old Khasra No. 3237 and the appellant has purchased the same vide sale deed dated 27.10.1998, from Smt. Nirmal Kumari wife of Smt. Kirti Kant, who was recorded as owner in possession of land bearing Khasra no. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of appeal, argued that land in question i.e. Khasra no. 1871, was part of old Khasra No. 3237 and the appellant has purchased the same vide sale deed dated 27.10.1998, from Smt. Nirmal Kumari wife of Smt. Kirti Kant, who was recorded as owner in possession of land bearing Khasra no. 1871,1872,1892 and 1895 as per order dated 22.2.1984 of the Settlement Officer, Kangra. That the Id. Commissioner, Kangra has allowed the appeal without production of certified copy of impugned order and the record of the court below whereas he should have issued direction to reconstruct the record. In support of his contention, Id. counsel has cited ''2005 Vol (2) SLJ, 1231" wherein the Financial Commissioner(A), H.P. in revision petition No. 181/02 titled Harminder Singh v. Smt. Darshana Devi & Anr. , has held that the Id. Commissioner could not have adjudicated upon the issue raised by the present petitioner before him in appeal without having perused the case file of the order appealed against and had the petitioner sought to get the record reconstructed as per provisions of Rule 5 of Chapter 19A and Rule 4 of Chapter 16D of Volume IV of the Punjab Criminal Court Rules and other, Instructions applicable to both Civil and Criminal Courts. As such, the Id. counsel urged to allow the appeal by setting aside the orders passed by Id. Commissioner. 5. Per contra, Id. counsel for the respondents argued that the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent had purchased the land in dispute from one Shri Naresh Kumar vide sale deed dated 15.10.1980 as per site plan attached with sale deed. He further argued that there is a three storied house on the land in question whereas as per site plan attached with the sale deed of appellant there is only a two storied structure on the land purchased by him. He further argued that since the land/structure purchased by both the parties are adjacent to each other and the land was recorded as abadi deh, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant managed to get khasra no. 1871 recorded in their share during the settlement operation. The Id. He further argued that since the land/structure purchased by both the parties are adjacent to each other and the land was recorded as abadi deh, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant managed to get khasra no. 1871 recorded in their share during the settlement operation. The Id. counsel further submitted that the present petitioner had filed a civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction qua the land in question, against present respondent, which was decreed in their favour vide order dated 1.5.2012 but the present respondent challenged the same by filing an appeal before the Additional Distt. Judge, Una who has allowed the same vide order dated 25.3.2014 by setting aside the orders dated 1.5.2012 of the trial court and the matter was decided in favour of respondent Ld. counsel for the respondent argued that the orders of the id. Commissioner, has caused no prejudice to the present appellant as the matter has been remanded to the Settlement Collector for fresh adjudication after spot verification and hearing both the parties. Lastly, he urged that the present appeal being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, and have gone through the record of the Id. Commissioner. From the perusal of case file of Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, it is clear that the Id. Commissioner has entertained the appeal without certified copy of the order under challenge. But as the Id. Commissioner has only remanded the matter to the Settlement Collector on the basis of sale deeds and copies of site plans attached therewith, the same has caused no prejudice to any of the parties. Further, it is important to go through the copy of judgment dated 25.3.2014, delivered by the Id. ADJ, Una in Civil appeal No. 27 of 2012 titled as Rajesh Kumar & Ors v. Smt Sarjeevan Kanta Kumari From the perusal of para 9 onwards of the said judgement the Id. Court had determined certain issues amongst which the first two issues are relevant in order to adjudicate the present appeal, which are as follows:- 1. Whether the record prepared by settlement staff is contrary to sale deeds executed in the year 1980 and 1988 by virtue of which parties become owner in ''abadi deh'' land ? 2. Whether the entries in the Jamabandi are not proof of. Whether the record prepared by settlement staff is contrary to sale deeds executed in the year 1980 and 1988 by virtue of which parties become owner in ''abadi deh'' land ? 2. Whether the entries in the Jamabandi are not proof of. title qua house property?While deciding both the issues in affirmative, the Id. ADJ has observed as follows:- "12. As per the assertion of plaintiff, the suit property has been purchased by the plaintiff in the year 1998 but the same has been forcibly occupied by the defendants, on the other hand, learned defence counsel has argued that suit property comprised in Khasra no. 1871 was part and parcel of abadi deh lal lakeer of Una. The husband of Smt. Nirmala Kumari was posted in the office of Divisional Commissioner so his managed to add this Kura in his property during the settlement operation, '' although, the defendants were owners and they have also rented out that property. He counsel for defendants has further argued that plaintiff never came in possession of the suit property. The suit property is on the backside of the house of the , plaintiff abutting to the municipal committee lane. It is clear that Ext.DW-1/A to Ext.DW-1/D that the defendants have purchased the portion of the abadi deh in the year 1980 i.e. prior to settlement operations. The site plan has been attached with the sale Deed Ext.DW-1/B as per the requirement of law for purchase in the abadi deh. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was executed in the yea - 1988 that is after the completion of settlement operation. The site plan Ext.DW-1/Dis also attached with this deed. As per the site plan attached with the sale deed of plaintiff the plaintiff has purchased about 768 Sq. ft. plot approximately which is equivalent to 72 sq. meters i.e. 4 marlas. Now, description of the property mentioned in the sale deed Ext. DW-1/C is quite interesting. As per sale deed single storey two rooms , document storey one room, a kitchen, bathroom, courtyard and (jeena) attic has been purchased by the plaintiff As per Jamabandi Ext.P-1, the description of the land in Khasra no. 1871 is little bit different, where this Khasra number has been shown as gair mumkin makan having three stories,. As per sale deed single storey two rooms , document storey one room, a kitchen, bathroom, courtyard and (jeena) attic has been purchased by the plaintiff As per Jamabandi Ext.P-1, the description of the land in Khasra no. 1871 is little bit different, where this Khasra number has been shown as gair mumkin makan having three stories,. The site plan attached with the sale deed Ext.DW-1/C is according to the description given in the sale deed but this description is contrary to the Aks Shajra and Jambandi. The room comprised in Khasra No. 1871 has been depicted in the site plan as double storeyed room and not three storeyed house. On the contrary, the site plan attached with the Jamabandi of defendants shows three storeyed pucca room having opening towards the street of municipal committee and this is in consonance with the jamabandi Ext.P-1 pertaining to Khasra no. 1871. The trial Court has specifically mentioned in para 23 of the judgment that presumption of truth is attached with the revenue record unless and until, it is rebutted by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The trial court has also given reference qua Section 45 of the Land Revenue Act. The latest entry in the record of rights cannot be presumed to correct in view of the connecting evidence in the form of site plan and the area so purchased by the plaintiff. As per the site plan, the plaintiff has purchased only approximately 72 Sq. meters of land but in the jalmabandi Ext.P-1, the area of the land has been shown to be 91 Sq. Mts. and this increase is area is only due to the inclusion of Khasra no. 1871 in thekura of predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff. It is nowhere mentioned in the sale deed that the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff was in possession of area other that the land mentioned in the site plan. Moreover, this Khasra No. 1871 does not fit in the aks shajra Ext.D-2 relied by the defendants. So, in view of above discussion, and also in view of the documents placed on record by the defendants, it is very much clear that the record prepared by the Settlement Staff is contrary to the actual purchase made by the plaintiff in the year 1998. Hence, point No. 2 is also answered in affirmative. 13. So, in view of above discussion, and also in view of the documents placed on record by the defendants, it is very much clear that the record prepared by the Settlement Staff is contrary to the actual purchase made by the plaintiff in the year 1998. Hence, point No. 2 is also answered in affirmative. 13. It is admitted fact that the appeal regarding correction of the revenue record is pending before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala. The outcome of that decision will definitely effect either the plaintiff or the defendants, in case, the revenue record is treated to be true according to the factual position by the Divisional Commissioner, then, the defendant will lose all his rights over Khasra No. 1871, but if the revenue Court will give decision on the increase of area in favour of defendants and subtract that area from her ownership then the defendants will get the benefit of land and area comprised Khasra no. 1871. The plaintiff herself has pleaded that defendants are in possession of the suit property and they have given the property on rent to defendant No.5. The plaintiff during her cross-examination has specifically stated that there was a tenant on the disputed property prior to the purchase made by them. She has also stated that earlier, one Ramesh Chand was tenant of the defendant in the disputed property. She has also stated that she came to know about the tenant only after purchasing the suit property. The statement of plaintiff is contrary to her pleadings, where she has specifically mentioned that defendants had taken possession of the suit property six months prior to the filing of suit. It is well settled law that Jamabandi is merely a record of land owned by different owners and Jamabandi do not confer title on the person. The presumption which is attached to the revenue record, as held by the learned trial court, has been duly rebutted by the defendants by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Even the previous land owners have not stepped into the witness-box to support the pleading of the plaintiff, but they informed the plaintiff that she should try to make adjustment in the land, so that, she will get the property equal to the property actually purchased by her. Even the previous land owners have not stepped into the witness-box to support the pleading of the plaintiff, but they informed the plaintiff that she should try to make adjustment in the land, so that, she will get the property equal to the property actually purchased by her. The previous landlord has not assured the plaintiff that they will help her in getting the possession of the house property situated over khasra no. 1871. The learned Counsel for the defendants contents that the entries made in the revenue records do not confer any title upon the persons whose names are entered in various columns of such revenue record. He placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Corporation of Bangalore City v. M.Papaiah AIR 198S SC 1809 ,; Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Cahnd AIR 1994 SC 227 ; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram and others (1996) 11 SCC 257 . The learned standing Counsel also placed reliance upon the decisions of this court in Ramanna v. Sambamoorthy ; Ch. S. Hanumantha Rao v. R.Sainath and Sahana Granites, Madras v. Manduva Srinivasa Rao ." In view of the above findings of the Id. ADJ which do not seem to have been challenged by any of the parties and as such attained finality, it is clear that the record prepared during the settlement operation qua the land in dispute is contrary to the facts and evidences produced by the present respondent before the Civil Court. Hence, necessary correction is required to be carried out in the records-of-rights in consonance with the facts and the circumstances of the case. However, since in the concluding para, the Id. ADJ has observed that"., the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is set aside and the appeal of the defendant is accepted. However, the decision of the Civil Court shall have no effect on the merits of the proceedings pending before the Divisional Commissioner and this decision shall also not de-bar the parties from coming to the Civil Court on the basis of fresh decision of the revenue '' Courts...", it would be appropriate to remand this issue to the Id. Settlement Collector, Kangra as has also been observed by the Id. Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 10.3.2010. Hence, I find no impropriety in the orders of the Id. Settlement Collector, Kangra as has also been observed by the Id. Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 10.3.2010. Hence, I find no impropriety in the orders of the Id. Commissioner, Kangra Division, passed in case No. 77/2004, and the same are upheld. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. 7. Orders be communicate to parties. The records of the courts below be returned and file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion