The main legal point established in the judgment is that the partition process and allocation of land must be carried out in accordance with the law, and the decisions of the lower courts and authorities involved in the partition dispute are to be upheld if no irregularity or illegality is found.

ORDER :

1. The revision petition under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, is directed against the order dated 18-04-2011, passed by the Commissioner, Mandi Division, in case no. 61/2010, whereby he has dismissed the revision petition of the present petitioner filed before him.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that initially Shri Harsukh herein petitioner had filed an application before the A.C. Ist Grade, Nadaun on 2.1.1996 for partition of joint land comprising khata/khatauni no. 36/74-77, khasra nos. kita 15, area measuring 1-60-16 hectares, situated in Mauza Galore, Tehsil Nadaun, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P. The A.C. Ist Grade, had devised a mode of partition on 21.5.1999 and 5.6.1999. Against the order dated 21.5.1999, Shri Ram Sukh predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents filed an appeal before the Collector, Sub-Division, Nadaun, mainly on the ground against clause-3 of mode of partition, The Id. Collector, dismissed the same vide order dated 12.5.2000 in case no. 6/99. Subsequently, he filed a revision petition before the ADC, Hamirpur (exercising the powers of Commissioner during abolition of posts of Divisional Commissioners in H.P), who also dismissed the same vide order dated 18.1.2003 in case no. 8/2000. holding that "...the plea taken by the Id. counsel for the revisionist regarding adding of word 'Good and Bad' in clause 3 of the mode of partition is not based on logic as the A.C. Ist Grade has not put any party to disadvantageous position, simply by adding these words in clause-3 of mode of partition. To me, these words have been added by the A.C. Ist Grade while authenticating the mode of partition, I feel that intention of the A.C. Ist Grade is to act impartially and not to put any party to disadvantage. The Id. Collector, Sub-division, has rightly upheld order of the A.C. Ist Grade and as such the same is upheld and the revision petition is hereby rejected. Thereafter, Shri Ram Sukh, filed another revision petition before this court, which has been accepted by my predecessor vide order dated 29.7.2005 (case no. 33/2003), and directed the A.C. Ist Grade, to carry out the mode of partition ignoring the words 'Good and Bad' inserted in Clause-3 of the same.

3. On remand, the AC. Ist Grade, after taking into consideration the direction of this court and on perusal of the partition papers received from the field Kanungo, observed that the word 'Good and Bad' has not affected any parties, meaning thereby that there remain no objection to such an addition. Thus, he finalised the partition vide order dated 23.9.2006, and thereafter, after the expiry of time of appeal, the instrument of partition has also been drawn.

4. Feeling aggrieved with the above order of the A.C. Ist Grade, dated 23-9-2006, Shri Sukh Ram, filed an appeal before the Collector, Sub-Division, Nadaun, mainly qua the distribution of khasra no. 115. The Id. Collector, after hearing the parties and examining be record of the trial court vide order dated 16.12.2009, while dismissing the appeal (no. 33/2007), has held that "...the appellant has been allotted 33 meter in length and on the same side khasra no. 115/1 in length 30 meters is allotted to the respondent and the (Inferences of internal area is about same except minor increase to the land allotted to the respondent. From the perusal of jamabandi attached with the lower court file khasra no. 115 is recorded under the possession of Ram Sukh respondent. As far as violation of mode of partition nothing brought on record which can be verified from the record of lower court..."

5. Still aggrieved, he filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Mandi Division, who after hearing the parties and on perusal of the record of the courts below, also held that there is no violation of mode of partition, resultantly, he has also dismissed the same vide the impugned order dated 18.4.2011. hence, this revision petition has been filed before this court on the same ground.

6. I have he