ORDER R. K. Anand F. C. —The Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division, vide his order, dated 31-5-1984 recommended that the orders, dt. 12-1-1983 and 12-l-198i of the Collector, Dehra Sub-Division and the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade respectively should be quashed as the impugned orders are tantamount to sitting in judgment over the order, dated 6-5-1980 passed earlier by the Settlement Collector. 2. Brifely, the facts of the case are that respondent, Rattan Chand applied for the partition of the land, comprising Khata No. 144m plots 2, measuring t-62-27 hectares, situated in Mohal Hasol, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade vide his order, dated 6-7-1979 rejected the application on the ground that a question of title was involved as Rattan Chand was not in possession of the land. This order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, was challenged before the Settlement Collector, who vide his order, dated 6-5-1980 upheld the same. In his order, he referred to the statement made by Rattan Chand wherein he had admitted that even though the land had been purchased by him from one Gitu, he had not been put in possession of the same. In other words, on the basis of the evidence before him, he came to the conclusion that a question of title was involved and the partition application had been rightly rejected by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. Subsequently, the respondent, Rattan Chand again applied for the partition of the land to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. He, vide his order, dated 12- 11-1981, allowed the partition application. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner, Bhagtoo preferred an appeal before the Collector, Dehra Sub Division, He vide his order, dated 12-1-1983 dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was nothing on record to suggest that a private partition had been effected between the parties and therefore, no question of title was involved. This order was assailed in revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, who, as stated above, made this recommendation. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the court record. Perusal of court record reveals that the respondent, Rattan Chands application for the partition of the land had been rejected by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, vide his order, dated 6-7-1979. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the court record. Perusal of court record reveals that the respondent, Rattan Chands application for the partition of the land had been rejected by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, vide his order, dated 6-7-1979. This order was upheld in appeal by the Settlement Collector wide his order, dated 6-5-1980 Since no appeal/revision had been filed against the order of the Settlement Collector, the order passed by him had become absolute and final. In other words, the partition application made by Rattan Chand had been rejected and partition of the land, in question, could not be allowed till the question of title which had been held to exist, had been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. As is evident from the court record, the partition application had been rejected on the ground that Rattan Chand was not in possession of the land and moreover, a question of title was involved In other wards, the question of title had to be adjudicated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction before the partition of the land, in question could be allowed. The respondent neither challenged the order of the Settlement Collector nor he approached the civil court for the determination of the question of title. Instead, he made another application for partition after sometime. Even though, this time, he succeeded and his application for partition was allowed, the order passed by the Revenue Officers allowing the partition application suffers from a legal infirmity as the question of title which was involved had to he settled before the partition of the land, in question, could be effected. It was rightly held by the Divisional Commissioner that the impugned orders the Revenue Officers were tantamount to by passing the earlier order of the Settlement Collector, who had upheld the order of the settlement Collector, who had upheld the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, rejecting the partition application. Since the correct procedure has not been followed by the respondent, Rattan Chand, the recommendation made by the Divisional Commissioner is accepted and the orders passed by the Revenue Officers below are quashed. The order may be communicated. Order accordingly.