The main legal point established in the judgment is that in revision petition, no interference is called for in case of concurrent findings on facts by the lower Courts unless their decision is perverse.

Dr. A.R. Basu, F.C. (Appeals).—This revision petition under Section 17 of H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 has been preferred by S/Shri Ram Chand and three other petitioners against an order dated 19.8.2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of Commissioner, Solan District whereby the revision petition filed by the present petitioners against the order of Collector Kandaghat dated 31.7.1999 was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the present respondent Shri Lekh Ram applied to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Kandaghat for partition of land jointly held by both the parties comprised in khata No. 59 khatoni Nos. 109, 110, 111 and 112 kita 102, measuring 125-08 Bighas situated in Village Vakana, Pargana Vakana, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan vide Jamabandi for the year 1989-1990.

3. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kandaghat after completing the partition proceedings formulated the mode of partition vide order dated 3.2.1996.

4. Against this order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kandaghat, S/Shri Paras Ram and Rama Nand both sons of Shri Jai Ram filed an appeal before the Collector Kandaghat on the grounds that the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was contrary to law and facts of the case and the preparation of mode of partition was also illegal. They further claimed that the dispute with regard to possession of the land in dispute had to be decided before framing the mode of partition.

5. The learned Collector, Kandaghat after hearing the learned Counsels for both the parties and going through the record, accepted the appeal vide order dated 11.7.1996 and remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Kandaghat, with the directions to decide the dispute with regard to possession of the land before preparing the mode of partition and other questions according to the procedure laid down under Section 130 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. In compliance of the order of the Collector Kandaghat dated 11.7.1996, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade again framed the mode of partition vide order dated 7.9.1996 and after expiry of appeal period, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade sent the copy of the mode of partition to the Field Kanungo for further compliance vide order dated 19.12.1996. After the receipt of compliance report from the Field Kanungo, the present petitioners made some objections with regard to distribution of certain khasra numbers. After visiting the spot and hearing the parties, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade ordered some changes in the mode of partition vide order dated 30.10.1998.

6. Aggrieved by this order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade dated 30.10.1998, the present petitioners filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Kandaghat on the grounds that the trial Court had no jurisdictions to decide the matter on the spot and the same should have been decided in regular proceedings in the Court room and that their genuine objections had been rejected arbitrarily by the learned Court.

7. The Sub-Divisional Collector after hearing both the parties, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 31.7.1999.

8. Dis-satisfied with this order of the Sub-divisional Collector Kandaghat dated 31.7.1999, the present petitioners filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner Shimla which was later on transferred to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan exercising the powers of Commissioner.

9. The learned Commissioner (D.C.) after hearing both the parties held that there had been no illegality in passing of the orders on the spot in the presence of both the parties. He observed that it was merely a delaying tactics being played by the petitioners in the partition proceedings. He consequently dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 19.8.2000.

10. It is against this order of the Commissioner that the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition before this Court.

11. Both the parties have presented their written arguments. The petitioners have,