The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exercise of review by a Revenue Officer without obtaining the necessary sanction, as per Section 16 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, is impermissible and renders subsequent orders and appeals legally unsustainable.

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been instituted before this Court at the instance of the respondents No. 3 to 8 in CWP No. 11145 of 2011 titled as Pholo Ram versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals) and others, who feeling aggrieved by the judgment made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP aforesaid, hereinafter referred to as the impugned judgment for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

2. Shorn of verbosity the facts germane for rendering an adjudication on the present appeal are of the respondent No.1 herein and the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein, namely, Jindu Ram besides the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 4 to 6 herein, namely, Sant Ram, jointly owning as co-sharers the undivided and un-partitioned holdings comprised in Khasra Nos. 555, 392, 393, 395, 396, 398 and 402 Kita 7, Khata Khautaui No. 164/249, situated in Revenue village Berthin, Pargana Sunhani, Tehsil Jhanduta, District Bilaspur, H.P. Respondent No.1 herein Pohlo Ram for begetting severance by metes and bounds of the un-partitioned/undivided holding constituted in Khasra Nos. aforesaid by its partition, instituted an apposite application before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Ghumarwain, District Bilaspur. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Ghumarwin, on receiving the application instituted before him by respondent No.1 herein seeking partition by metes and bounds of the joint holdings aforesaid, prepared under his order dated 4.6.1992 (Annexure P-1) an apposite mode of partition qua it. However, the mode of partition prepared by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Ghumarwin vide order dated 4.6.1992, supra, omitted to take within its ambit, the undivided holdings of the parties at lis abutting the road side. The mode of partition, as prepared by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade Ghumarwin was transmitted to the field staff for execution. On the mode of partition as devised by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade Ghumarwin being transmitted for execution to the field staff, the respondents herein had appeared before the field Kanungo on 6.1.1993 proclaiming before him that for begetting or ensuring parity of distribution amongst the co-owners even of the undivided holding abutting the road side while it carrying a high market value necessitated its being also incorporated in the mode of partition. Given the objections hence preferred by the respondents herein to the mode of partition prepared by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Ghumarwin under his aforesaid order, the field Kanungo, to whom, the relevant papers had been transmitted by the former for execution, prepared a report and dispatched it to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Ghumarwin. The latter summoned the parties herein on 18.3.1993 and proceeded to order that the undivided land abutting the road side be also distributed amongst them in consonance with their share holdings in the undivided estate.

3. Against the aforesaid order dated 18.3.1993, an appeal was preferred therefrom by the predecessor-interest of the appellants herein before the Collector, Sub Division Ghumarwin. The Collector, Sub Division Ghumarwin dismissed the appeal on 13.12.1994.

4. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein instituted a Revision Petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. The Divisional Commissioner set aside the order dated 18.3.1993 made by the Assistant Collector and made commensurate recommendations to

the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) while being seized of the Revision Petition, instituted before him, at the instance of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein, concluded therein that when the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Ghumarwin devised a mode of partition qua the undivided estate of the parties at lis vide order dated 4.6.1992, yet omitted to incorporate therein for distribution amongst co-owners their joint estate abutting the road side rath