The Financial Commissioner has wide and unfettered revisional powers under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1953, which are not at par with the revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115 of the C.P.C. The enforcement of a new law during the pendency of an appeal or revision does not affect the rights of the parties acquired under the previous law.

This is a reference in revision sent up by the learned Distt. Collector, Sirmur vide his orders dated 7th July, 1981 recommending the setting aside of the partition ordered in this case by the Asstt. Collector I Greade, Nahan on 27-8-74 and the subsequent order of the Collector, Nahan Sub-Division, confirming the partition on 5-8-80.

2. The facts of the case are that S/Shri Om Parkash, Sharnsher Singh and lnder Singh of village Trilokpur applied for partition of shamlat land contained in khata/khatauni No. 81/131-251, measuring 7742-2 bighas, situated in village Trilokpur, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmur on 15-7-197L The Assistant Collector I Grade after hearing the parties sanctioned the mode of partition which was subsequently revised m July, 1973 and directed the concerned field staff to effect the partition on the spot according to the mode of partition. After the partition was carried out on the spot the Asstt. Collector I Grade, on receipt of the papers from the field again heard the parties, visited the spot and passed final orders on 27-8-1974 Aggrieved by these orders, Shri Atma Ram and some other co-sharers tiled an appeal before the Collector, Nahan Sub-Division, Nahan on 5-2-1975 on the grounds that the area kept for charand was not fit for this purpose ; that it was not compact ; and that classification of land was not kept in view at the time of partition. This appeal was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Nahan on 15-2-1975 as being time barred. Shri Atma Ram and others then filed a revision petition before the learned Commissioner on 7-6-1975. The learned Commissioner after hearing the parties recommended the case for orders of this court under section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. The then learned Financial Commissioner accepted the recommendation of the Commissioner vide his orders dated 17-7-1978 and held that the appeal was within limitation after allowing the period spent in obtaining the copies by the petitioners. Consequently the appeal was heard on merits by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Nahan and the same was rejected vide orders dated 5-8-1980 holding that the objections raised in the appeal were without any substance.

3. Not satisfied with the appellate orders, Shri Atma Ram and others presented a revision petition before the Collector, Sirmur who submitted it to the learned Commissioner. The learned Commissioner vide orders dated 26-12-1980 passed an interim order staying the proceedings upto 28-1-1981 and returned the petition, in original, to the Distt. Collector, Sirmur for final disposal of the stay and also the revision petition on merits in accordance with the law. Pursuant to these orders, the learned Collector after going through the record and hearing the parties has recommended that since during the pendency of the appeal the H.P. Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilisation Act had come into force on 29-8-1974, the partition could not be ordered as the shamlat land had vested in the State Government, He has, therefore, recommended the setting aside of the orders passed by the Asstt. Collector I Grade and the Collector. It is in this back-ground that the present proceedings have arisen in this court.

4. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are :-— (i) that since the appeal against the original orders was decided only in August 1980, the earlier orders had not become final; (ii) that the learned Collector should have taken into consideration the subsequent change in law on account of the enforcement of the H.P. Village Common Lands Vesting & Utilisation Act, while deciding the appeal; and (iii) that the partition is complete only after the partition deed has beeh drawn and i t is effective from the date incorporated in the instrument of partition.

5. In support of his contention that an appeal or revision is a continuation of the suit/proceedings and that the finality of the decree of the trial court