The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for self-speaking orders and detailed reasons for acceptance or denial of issues raised before the appellate authority. The judgment also emphasizes the court's power under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act to call for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by any revenue officer subordinate to him.

ORDER :

1. This revision petition has arisen based on the recommendations of the Id. Divisional Commissioner Mandi Division, dated 18.9.2015, made in Case No. 208/2015, vide which the Lo Commissioner has referred the matter to this Court, under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for setting aside the orders passer by the Id. Collector, Sub-Division, Hamirpur and to remand the case back to the low court, or pass as may be deemed fit.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the present respondent, Smt Guddi Devi, through her counsel Shri S.C. Sharma, Advocate, made an application date: 1.6.2013, under section 123 of the Act, before the A.C. 1st Grade, Hamirpur, for partition of joint land comprised in khata/khatauni No. 28/36, bearing khasra No. 27, 32, 37, 71, 74, 76, 160 and 170, kita 8, area measuring, 0-51-10 hectares, situated in Mohai Kuthera Uperla, Tappa Kuthera, Tehsil and Distt. Hamirpur, H.P. as per jamabandi for the yea 2010-2011. After following the due process of law, the A.C. 1st Grade, devised a mode of partition vide order dated 28.2.2014, and sent a copy thereof to the field agencies fa partition of the land on the spot. On receipt of the partition papers prepared by the field staff the Ld. AC 1st visited the spot himself in order the resolve the objections raised b) the parties and thereafter, vide order dated 30.6.2014, sanctioned the final partition in case file No. 4/2014. After expiry of the period of appeal, the Id. A.C. 1st Grade, prepare the instrument of partition and thereafter possession has been delivered and the mutatia has also been attested on 29.11.2015.

3. In between, the present petitioner challenged the order dated 30.6.2014, of the A.C. 1st Grade, before the Id. Collector, Sub-Division, Hamirpur by filing an appeal No. 46/2004 dated on 19.8.2014, on the grounds that the land has not been partitions keeping in view possession of the parties; that the land bearing khasra no. 37 is a very valuable piece of land but despite the possession of the present petitioner over that khasra number, less area has been allotted to them. That no land has been allotted them in khasra no. 160 which abutts the road and similarly, khasra no. 32 is also re, partitioned as per the possession of the parties and that khasra no. 71 and 76 which are in the shape of 'Nala' and 'Cheer' as well as 'Sapar'(rock) on the spot, have been allotted to the appellants whereas as per mode of partition, the land of these khasra nos. was to be partitioned in equal shares among the parties. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the record, the Id. Collector, vide order dated 31.3.2015, dismissed the appeal observing that there is no infirmity in the order of the lower court.

4. Hence, a revision petition was filed before the Id. Commissioner, Mandi Division on the same grounds as were taken before the Id. Collector in appeal. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, the Id. Commissioner, has referred the mattertl this Court for exercising revisional powers under section 17(4) of the Act, observing the "...the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Hamirpur is not a self speaking order and he has not discussed the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioners which is against the principle of natural justice." Therefore, the Id. Commissioner, has recommended that orders passed by Id. Collector, Sub-Division, Hamirpur may be set aside and case be remanded to lower court or as the court may deems fit.

5. I have heard the Id. counsels for both the parties. Besides, the grounds of revision, the Ld. Counsel for petitioners has argued that no 'fard kabza mauka' was called by the lower court. The Ld. Counsel also alleged that no partition has been done on the spot and Kanungo has never visited the spot and all papers have been prepared in the office of the Patwari halqua just to give advantage to the respondent. It has been averred that the operation of the or