JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners assailed order dated 14.11.2001, passed by the learned Financial Commissioner on the recommendations made by the learned Divisional Commissioner, in terms whereof, learned Divisional Commissioner recommended the acceptance of the revision filed before it and the remand of the matter back to the Tehsildar by setting aside the order passed by the Land Reforms Officer dated 08.08.1996. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that one Saran Dass presented an application on 18.05.1991 before Assistant Collector 1st Grade Nadaun, in terms whereof, a prayer was made that necessary correction be carried out in the revenue entries in Khasra Girdawari in respect of land comprised in Khata No.39 min Khatauni No.44, Khasra No.76 measuring 39 Kanals 02 Marlas, as entered in Jamabandi for the years 1985-86, situated in village Doligharana, Tappa Kohla, Tehsil Nadaun on the ground that he was in sole cultivating possession of the said land from the time of his ancestors as tenant, paying rent to the Raja of Nadaun. As per Saran Dass, the Settlement Operation of the area st commenced in the meantime and Assistant Collector 1 Grade Nadaun vide order dated 16.07.1992 sent the file to Assistant st Collector 1 Grade Settlement for further action. 3. The application of Saran Dass was rejected by st Assistant Collector Settlement 1 Grade/Land Reforms Officer on 09.09.1993. Feeling aggrieved, Saran Dass preferred an appeal before Settlement Collector, in which, he took the ground that as he was the only non-occupancy tenant under Raja Maheshwar Chand paying rent and the other party had no concern with the impugned land, therefore, as per law, he had become owner of the land. It was further his contention that as on the date when his application was dismissed by Land Reforms Officer, the matter was listed for recording his evidence, but the order stood passed at his back. 4. Settlement Collector set aside order dated 09.09.1993 passed by Assistant Collector vide order dated 09.02.1994 and remanded the case back to Assistant Collector 1stGrade for deciding the same on merit. 5. 4. Settlement Collector set aside order dated 09.09.1993 passed by Assistant Collector vide order dated 09.02.1994 and remanded the case back to Assistant Collector 1stGrade for deciding the same on merit. 5. Thereafter, Assistant Collector passed a fresh order on 08.08.1996 and ordered that Saran Dass be recorded in possession as non-occupancy tenant on Khasra No.76 to the extent of 587 shares and Sarju Ram etc., to the extent of 143 shares under the ownership of State of Himachal Pradesh. 6. This order was assailed by Sarju Ram and two others by way of an appeal before the Settlement Collector Kangra. 7. The primary grounds of challenge were that in terms of their possession on the spot, they were entitled to 243 shares instead of 143 shares and Saran Dass was entitled to487 shares instead of 587 shares. 8. Settlement Collector after hearing the parties rejected the appeal on 30.05.1998 as barred by limitation. 9. Said order was challenged by the aggrieved party by way of a Revision Petition before Divisional Commissioner Mandi on the ground that they were condemned unheard and they were not associated in the proceeding, more so, in light of the fact that they were entitled to 1½ share of the property and the other party was entitled to 1/2 share instead of 2/3rd share. 10. Learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi after hearing both the parties observed that Settlement Collector had failed to explain in the decision, the findings arrived at by him and, therefore, the matter required fresh inquiry. Learned Divisional Commissioner recommended the case to the learned Financial Commissioner for passing appropriate orders. 11. Learned Financial Commissioner has disposed of the recommendations made by the learned Divisional Commissioner in the following terms:- “After thoughtful considerations to the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and perusal of the records available on the case file, it appears that the present entries reflecting both the parties as non-occupancy tenants in the revenue records originated in a Rapat Rojnamcha dated 10.02.1964 whereby Chaudhary s/o Fandu and Saran Dass the present respondent have been ordered to be delivered possession of the land in question. However, no description as to shares has been recorded in the said report. It appears that the entries showing the parties as non-occupancy tenants also came to be recorded as a result of the said report. However, no description as to shares has been recorded in the said report. It appears that the entries showing the parties as non-occupancy tenants also came to be recorded as a result of the said report. The entries were assailed by respondent Saran Dass in the year 1991 before the Assistant Collector Nadaun and a request was made to correct the entries to reflect the respondent as tenant over the entire land and to delete the 1/3rd share from the name of the petitioners. However, The Assistant Collector by his order dated 8.8.1996 ordered that respondent Saran Dass be recorded tenant to the extent of 587 shares and the petitioner he recorded to the extent of 143 shares. Perusal of the case file of Land Reforms Officer shows that there is no basis whatsoever to determine and reflect the shares as shown by the Land Reforms Officer. The shares of the parties continue to be reflected in the revenue record to 2/3rd and 1/3rd unabated for a long time and Revenue Officer/Land Reforms Officer has no jurisdiction whatsoever intervene or alter the recorded shares of the parties in the revenue record. The application of the respondent for correction before the Assistant Collector deserved dismissal as he had no jurisdiction to alter the entries subsisting in the revenue record for the last so many years. Consequently order passed by the Land Reforms Officer on 8.8.1996 is without jurisdiction and is therefore set-aside. Resultantly subsequent orders also fall as a consequence thereof and the position obtaining prior to that date shall prevail. Orders be communicated to the parties and case file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion.” 12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable for the reason that when it has come on record in terms of the order that was passed by the Authority on 08.08.1996 that the parties had agreed that their possession be recorded in the revenue record as per their actual possession on the spot, the order passed by the Authority dated 08.08.1996 suffered from no vice and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in appreciating this fact. 13. 13. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that because rd admittedly the private respondents are entitled to 2/3 share rd and the petitioners are only entitled to 1/3 share, then, as 587 shares as have been recorded in favour of the petitioners and 143 shares as have been recorded in favour of the private rd respondents, add up to 730, 1/3 thereof comes to 243 and in this backdrop, recording of only 143 shares in favour of the private respondents is unsustainable. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel contended that it would be in the interest of justice, in case, this petition is disposed of by issuance of a direction to the Authorities to record the shares stricto sensu 2/3rd in favour of the petitioners and 1/3rd in favour of the respondents. 14. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through all the orders that were passed from time to time by the Authorities including the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals). 15. The findings returned by the learned Financial Commissioner to the effect that order dated 08.08.1996 is without jurisdiction is primarily based on the satisfaction of the said Authority that there was no jurisdiction vested with the Land Reforms Officer to alter the long recorded share of the parties in the Revenue Record. However, record demonstrates that after settlement, the actual land now stands reduced from39.2 Kanals to 36.10 Kanals. 16. In the light of this fact, this Court is of the considered view that to put a quietus to this entire litigation between the parties, which is very old, it would be in the interest of justice, in case, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the parties to appear before the Land Reforms Officer, with a further direction to the said Officer to carry out necessary corrections in the revenue record in terms of the share of the parties, but taking into consideration their respective possession upon the land in question. It also goes without saying that this will not preclude the parties from mutually agreeing for some settlement at the spot. 17. It also goes without saying that this will not preclude the parties from mutually agreeing for some settlement at the spot. 17. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by modifying the orders passed by the Authorities in terms mentioned hereinabove, with direction to the parties to appear before Land Reforms Officer on 05.05.2025, who thereafter, shall act in the terms of the judgment that has been passed by the Court. Record, if any, be forthwith returned back to the office of the Tehsildar Nadaun. It is made clear that on 05.05.2025, even if the Officer concerned is not there, presence of the parties, either themselves or through their authorized representatives shall be recorded by the Officer/official of the office and the Land Reforms Officer thereafter shall fix a date within 15 days as from 05.05.2025 for the first appearance of the parties and thereafter an endeavor shall be made to settle the dispute intra the parties as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 31.07.2025. Order under challenge stands modified in terms of this judgment.