ORDER Shri R. K. Anand, F. C—Appellants, Bachittar Singh and others have preferred an appeal under section 14 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act against the order, dated 31-10-1983 of the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division By virtue of the impugned order, he set aside the order, dated 4-10-1972 of the Collector, Una, on the ground that he could not have reviewed the order of mutation without giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected parties. Moreover, even though the Tehsildar Una, exercising the powers of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade had passed the impugned order allowing the partition, his order had become final as it had been confirmed by the Financial Commissioner vide his order, dated 17-6-1964 and subsequently the parties had also been put in possession of their respective shares and the mutation No. 927 of the partition had also been sanctioned by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Una, on 19-6-1970. It was further held by him that since the order passed by the Collector, Una, was bad in law, it deserved to be quashed. 2. Briefly, the facts, of the case are that the land comprising Khewat No. 1, Khatauni No. 1, measuring about 12639-1 kanals, situated in village Lalsinghi, Tehsil and District Una, was sought to be partitioned. Proforma respondents No. 6 to 9 namely S/Shri Yoginder Singh, Rakshpal Singh, Prem Lai, Surinder Pal Singh and late Raghubir Singh went in appeal/revision upto the court of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab and he vide his order, dated 17-6-1964 confirmed the partition. During the consolidation proceedings, It came to the notice of the present respondents, Dhani Ram and others that the Consolidation Officer had made a report to the Collector for permission to review the partition mutation No. 927 and permission was accorded by the Collector vide his order, dated 4-10-1972. Aggrieved by this order, the present respondents preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. Their contention was that a notice was not issued to them and the review was allowed behind their back. As a result of the review, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Una, set aside the partition mutation No. 927. Aggrieved by this order, the present respondents preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. Their contention was that a notice was not issued to them and the review was allowed behind their back. As a result of the review, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Una, set aside the partition mutation No. 927. Even though the appeal was filed by the present respondents in the court of the Divisional Commissioner after the period of limitation had expired, the dely was condoned by the Divisional Commissioner and parties were also directed to maintain the status quo till the disposal of the appeal. The legal heirs of the parties, who had expired in the meantime, were also brought on record The point of jurisdiction was also raised before the Divisional Commissioner He, however, came to the conclusion that since the order appealed against had been passed by the Collector and not by the Settlement Collector (Consolidation of Holdings), section 14 of Punjab Consolidation Act was not attracted and he had the jurisdiction to admit and dispose of the appeal. Moreover, the partition was allowed in 1960 whereas the village Lalsinghi came under consolidation in 1961 on the basis of the relevant notification which is, dated 13-1-1961. 3. I have heard the learned Counsels for the appellants as well as the respondents and perused the court record. There are two very important questions, which have to be determined. These are firstly, whether the review could have been allowed without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the affected parties as is required under section 16 (l) (c) of the H P. Land Revenue Act and secondly, whether the Collector could interfere with the order, which had been confirmed by the Financial Commissioner. As regards the first question, principles of natural justice require that a reasonable opportunity of being heard should be given to the affected parties. Denial of an opportunity would be tentamount to denial of justice and any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice would be bad in law. Moreover, the relevant provisions of the Land Revenue Act as contained in section 16 (1) (c) require that a reasonable opportunity should be given before an order is modified or reversed on review. These are mandatory provisions of law and any contravention of these provisions would constitute sufficient ground for setting aside the order passed m review. Moreover, the relevant provisions of the Land Revenue Act as contained in section 16 (1) (c) require that a reasonable opportunity should be given before an order is modified or reversed on review. These are mandatory provisions of law and any contravention of these provisions would constitute sufficient ground for setting aside the order passed m review. In the instant case it appears that after permission for review was obtained the order was passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected parties. Since the order was reviewed without hearing the present respondents, the order was bad in law and should be quashed. As regards the second question the partition application was allowed before the village Lalsinghi was notified for consolidation of holdings operation and, therefore, the Divisional Commissioner had the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The order passed by him is based on correct interpretation of law and does not call for any interference. It is evident from the perusal of the court record that the partition had been finally confirmed by the Financial Commissioner and the order passed by him could not have been interfered with or modified by a subordinate Revenue Officer. In view of these patent mistakes and procedural irregularities committed by the Collector, his order was rightly quashed by the Divisional Commis&ionex. The appeal is dismissed. The order will be communicated to the parties Appeal dismissed.