The court upheld the mode of partition based on entitlement, possession, and classification of the land, emphasizing the need to proceed with partition proceedings without delay.

ORDER

Shri Narinder Chauhan, I.A.S., Financial Commissioner (Appeals). —This revision petition has been preferred under section 17 of the H.P.Land Revenue Act 1954, (herein after referred to as ''the Act''), against the order dated 26.9.2014, passed by the Id. Commissioner, Shimla Division, in Case No. 78/2011, whereby the Id. Commissions has dismissed the revision petition of the present petitioner by upholding the orders passed by the courts below.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Shri Krishna Nand, herein respondent filed an application under section 123 of the Act, before the A.C. 1st Grade, Kandaghat or 12.9.2007, for separation of his share in the land comprised in khata/khatauni no. 42'' 89, total kita 73, area measuring 117-02 bighas, situated in Mauza Chhausha, Pargna Bharooli, Tehsil Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, H.P., as per jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 After hearing both the parties, the A.C. 1st Grade, vide order dated 16.5.2008, devised a mode of partition, which was assailed by the present petitioner before the Id. Collector, Sub-Division, Kandaghat, who, vide order dated 30.12.2008, passed in case No. 15.8.2008, allowed the appeal and set aside the above order of the A.C.1st and remanded the case to the A.C. 1st Grade with the direction to prepare "Fard Kabza" before framing the mode of partition. On remand, the Id. A.C.1st Grade, got the "fard kabza mauka" prepared through the Patwari concerned and after hearing the counsels for both the parties, again devised a mode of partition on 7.11.2009.

3. Feeling aggrieved with the above order of the Id. A.C. 1st Grade, dated 7.11.2009 the present petitioner, again challenged the same before the Id. Collector, Sub-Division, Kandaghat, on the grounds that the lower court has not recorded the statement of the appellant/petitioner before framing the mode of partition, and the land adjoining and surrounding to his house, should be allotted to him for which a specific clause/condition should be inserted in the mode of partition, and the same should not be left to the Field Kanungo. Further that it should also be mentioned as to which plot is to be allotted to which specific party. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the file of the trial court, the Id. Collector, Kandaghat, vide his order dated 23.8.2010, dismissed the appeal No. 06/8/2010, observing that the appellant appears interested in delaying the proceeding of the case intentionally on one pretext or another.

4. Still dis-satisfied, the petitioner, further filed a revision petition before the Ld. Commissioner, Shimla Division, on similar grounds. The Id. Commissioner, after hearing the parties and a perusal of the records, vide order dated 26.9.2014 passed in Revision No. 78/2011, upheld the orders of the lower courts and rejected the same. Hence, the present revision petition.

5. Before admitting the case, it was considered appropriate to examine the record of the trial court to ascertain the veracity of issues raised by the petitioner during the arguments advanced for admission of the case. The case file of the trial court has been received. In the mean time, the respondent also filed a caveat, and as such both the parties were heard.

6. Ld. counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the grounds of revision petition, argued that the possession of the petitioner has been ignored while preparing mode of partition. According to him, khasra nos. 415, 937, 958 and 1084 are in his exclusive possession Further, that the land adjoining and surrounding the house of petitioner should be allotted to him, and more ''ghasni'' portion has been given to him. Ld. counsel also asserted that both the parties are enjoying separate possession over the land in question since long and the same should be partitioned as per possession.

7. Per contra, the respondent, argued that the parties to the dispute are two brothers and both are entitled to equal share over the total land measuring 117-02 bighas and both are entitled to