Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¹Whether approved for reptorting?________________________r_________________________________________ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes Petitioner feels aggrieved against order dated26.02.2024, passed by the Divisional Commissioner Mandi [exercising powers of Financial Commissioner, (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh], whereby revision petition preferred by thepetitioners was dismissed.

2. Heard and considered the case file.

3. From the case file, it appears that:-

It was during the years 2003-04 that respondent No.2 moved an application under Section 123 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (the Act in short) for partitionH of land held by him jointly with other co-owners, including the present petitioners. The Assistant Collector First Grade, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, processed the application and vide order dated 23.02.2005, finalized the partition. Feeling aggrieved against order dated 23.02.2005, petitioners preferred appeal before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Nadaun, District Hamirpur. The appeal was dismissed on 24.12.2008. Petitioners carried the matter further in Revision Petition filedhunder Section 17 of the Act before the Divisional gCommissioner, Mandi [exercising powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh]. The said Revision Petition was also dismissed on 26.02.2024. More than a year after the dismissal of theaforesaid Revision Petition, petitioners instituted this writ petition seeking to quash and set aside order dated 26.02.2024. Objections pointed out by the Registry in the writ petition were removed after a delay of about 270 days.

The substantive relief prayed for in the writ petition reads asunder:-

“(i) That the impugned order dated 26.02.2024 (Annexure P-5) may kindly be quashed and further directed the learned Assistant Collector 1st Class to partition the land as per pos session and share ofthe parties.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a path had been providedt over Khasra No. 99 subject matter of partition proceedings, but width of the path provided to the petitioners in the aforesaid khasra number was not adequate. For this reason, orders passed by the Authorities below are required to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Assistant Collector First Grade, Nadaun District Hamirpur,for carrying out fresh partition proceedings.

5. Perusal of order dated 23.02.2005 passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Nadaun District Hamirpur, finalizing the partition proceedings takes note of petitioners’ prayer for giving them path from Khasra No. 99 and accordingly path has been carved out from Khasra No. 99. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any document on the case file suggesting that petitioners ever objected either before the Sub Divisional Collector, Nadaun or before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi about inadequacy/insufficiency of the width of path carved out in Khasra No.99. The order passed by Hthe Sub-Divisional, Collector, Nadaun, as also by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi takes note of the fact that petitioner No.1 had himself given a statement on 29.01.2005 to the effect that partition carried out on the spot was acceptable to him. That being the admitted position and there being no document on record to even reflect that petitioners ever objected to the insufficiency to the width of the path carved out for them from Khasra No.99, the relief being urged now, cannot behgranted to them. No other point was taken during hearing of gthe case. For the foregoing, it cannot be said that the impugned orders are unlawful so as to warrant any interference with them.

At this stage, to a query of the Court, learnedcounsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that the partition order has now even been implemented on the spot and the parties are enjoying changed possession in terms of the landallotted to them in the partition proceedings.

For the aforesaid reasons, the