JUDGMENT R. K. Anand, F. C. - The Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division has, vide his order, dated 21-3-1983, recommended that the orders of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade as well as the Collector, Dehra Sub-Division, should be set-aside and the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, directed to sanction the mode of petition without disturbing the possession of the parties. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Fatta and Bhagtu were the joint owners of the land comprising Khasra Nos 2188/1680, 1681/45 and 1682/1145, measuring 4 Kanals 17 marlas, situated in Tika and Mauza Dehra and their respective shares in the land were to the extent of 3 kanals 13 marlas and 1 kanal 4 marlas respectively. The present petitioners purchased 2 kanals 13 marlas of land from Fatta and Amar Chand purchased 1 kanal from Fatta, In other words, Fatta sold his entire share to Bardu Ram, Subhash Chand and Amar Chand. While Bardu and Subhash Chand purchased the land from Fatta in 1968, Amar Chand bought it in 1974. 3. The present respondent, Tara Chand applied for partition of the land measuring 4 kanals 17 marlas on 7-8-1975 to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Dehra. The Assistant Collector, llnd Grade, to whom the file had been sent, recorded the statements and proposed the mode of partition. The mode of partition was finally sanctioned by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, on 6-12-1977. Feeling aggrieved by that order, dated 20-11-1976 by virtue of which, the mode or partition was proposed, Bardu Ram preferred an appeal before the Collector, Dehra, but the appeal was dismissed. Now aggrieved by this order of the collector, Dehra Sub-Division, he and Subhash Chand preferred a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, who as stated above, recommended the same for acceptance. 4. I have heard the learned Counsels for the petitioners as well as the respondents and perused the court record. Perusal of the court record reveals that the Assistant Collector, Tst Grade proposed that the front portion of the land should be partitioned in such a way that Amar Chand gets 6 Korams, Bardu 11 + 7=18 Karams and Tara Chand I f 7=8 Karams. The contention of the petitioners is that their possession has not been respected and the partition has not been proposed in accordance with the well established principle of not disturbing the possession of the parties. The contention of the petitioners is that their possession has not been respected and the partition has not been proposed in accordance with the well established principle of not disturbing the possession of the parties. Since the petitioners, Badru and Subhash Chand purchased the land n 1968, their possession is older than that of Tara Chand, who purchased the land in 1974. U was on the basis of old possession of the petitioners that the learned Divisional Commissioner recommended that the orders passed by the Revenue Officers below should be quashed and a direction should be given to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade that while sanctioning the mode of partition, due regard should be given to the possession of the parties. Another lacuna in the order of the Revenue Officer below pointed out by the Divisional Commissioner is that the actual area to be partitioned is 10 marlas while the area proposed for partition in the mode of partition works out to 8 marlas only. Keeping in view the observations made by the learned Divisional Commissioner and the accepted principles of partition that as far as possible, the possession of the parties should not be disturbed, the recommendation made by him in his order is accepted and the order passed by the Assistant Coltector, 1st Grade is quashed. The case is remanded to him for disposal afresh in accordance with law. He should follow the procedure spelt out in the Land Records Manual, para 18 10. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, should visit the spot and then decide the method to be followed in dividing the land accorning to the respective shares of the parties. A map of the land to be partitioned should be prepared and a statement showing the area to be divided and share of the parties should also likewise, be drawn up. The order may be communicated to the parties. Order accordingly.