Judicial review under Article 226 is limited to procedural irregularities; the court does not act as an appellate authority over quasi-judicial decisions unless glaring errors are present.

JUDGMENT :

(Ajay Mohan Goel, J.)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

“(i) That the impugned order dated 25.03.2014 passed by the Learned Financial Commissioner (Appeal) Himachal Pradesh respondent No. 1 in Revision Petition No. 148/2010, whereby the order dated 09.04.2010 passed by the Divisional Commissioner Kangra at Dharamshala in Revision Petition No. 235/2009, order dated 22.12.2008 passed in Case No. 15/2007 by the Learned Sub-division Collector Palampur and order dated 21.03.2007 passed by the Learned AC First Grade Palampur passed in case No. 23/2007 at Annexure P-2 to Annexure P-5 respectively may kindly be quashed and set aside and the suit land may kindly be ordered to be repartitioned strictly in accordance with the mode of partition prepared, in the interest of justice.”

2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the orders that have been passed by the Quasi-Judicial Authorities against the final partition which was assailed by the petitioner.

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that an application was moved before Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. by one Smt. Sirmistha Devi for the partition of the joint land, comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 331/782, Khasra No. 1912, measuring 0-23-56 Hects, situated at Mohal Ghuggar, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. The application was forwarded to Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Palampur, for proposing the mode of partition. Mode of partition was proposed after hearing the parties on 27.12.2006. Thereafter the same was submitted to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Palampur and said Authority confirmed the mode of partition on 20.01.2007 and forwarded the papers to the Field Kanungo for spot partition. After receipt of papers from field agency, Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Palampur, sanctioned the final partition in the presence of the parties, including the present petitioner, vide order dated 21.03.2007.

4. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the present petitioner primarily on the ground that though on papers, he was allotted land measuring 0-07-28 hectares by reflecting the same as Khasra No. 1912/2 but the Tatima prepared and tagged with the file did not contain land more than 0-07-04 hectares. The appeal was dismissed by the Collector, Sub Division, Palampur, District Kangra, in terms of Annexure P-3, dated 22.12.2008. While dismissing the appeal, learned Collector assigned the following reasons:-

“The grounds offered for invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this court are that Ld A.C Ist Grade has passed the impugned order conforming the partition of land which is against law and facts on the file as the revenue officer below has failed to verify the correctness of the tatimas prepared by the field staff while passing the impugned order the appellant on papers has been allotted land measuring 0-07-28 Hects by showing the same as Khasra No. 1912/2, but the Tatima prepared at the spot and tagged with the file does not contain land more than 0-07-04 Hects The Field Staff while-preparing the tatimas of the parties have not acted honestly as is evident from the actual measurement of the land allotted to the respective parties.

On receipt of the file, the respondents were summoned in the Court to defend the case, respondents did not appear in the Court and ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them.

I have heard the Ld Counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record place on file as well Lower Court case file. The major objection taken by the appellant in the current appeal is that the Ld A.C. Ist Grade, Palampur passed impugned order without verifying the correctness of the tatimas prepared at the spot. It is the contention of the appellant that he has been allotted a total of 0-07-28 Hects of land vide Khasra No. 1912/2 which as per the tatima tagged with the case file contains not more than 0- 07-04 Hects of land. However the bar