JUDGMENT M. S. Mukherjee, I. A. S., Financial Commissioner (Rev. and A.)-—This second revision petition under section 16 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act has been directed against the order dated 30-9-1985 of the learned Commissioner, Simla Division challenging thereby the legality and propriety of his order passed in revenue revision No. 68/76. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Commissioner dismissed the petition and maintained the concurrent findings of two Revenue Officers below. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the present respondent Sh. Prithi Nath had made an application to the Tehsildar, Kasumpti, for partition of land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 6/11 measuring 36-15 bighas, situated in Village Shakral, Tehsil Kasumpti. The statements of the parties were recorded and thereupon the Assistant Collector found that a question of title was involved and he, being not competent to decide the same, referred the case to Revenue Assistant for adjudication. The Revenue Assistant gone through the case file and heard the parties. He came to the conclusion that there was no question of title involved. As such he directed the Assistant Collector I Grade, Kasumpti to go ahead with the partition proceedings, vide his order dated 31-8-1970 However, this order of Revenue Assistant was further challenged in appeal before the Collector, Simla District who too dismissed the appeal on 9-1-1976, Again this order of the District Collector was challenged before the Commissioner, Simla Division by Smt. Ishwari Devi and Shanti Devi Ds/o late Sh. Trilok Chand. But they also proved as unsuccessful. The learned Commissioner, Simla Division, vide his order dated 30-9-1985 upheld the order of the District Collector. The present case arises out of the second revision petition filed by the petitioners against this impugned order of the learned Commissioner- 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at the stage of admission and have carefully gone through the papers and documents submitted by him. His main plea is that a private partition had earlier taken place between the father of the petitioner and respondent which involved partition of the lands belonging to both of Mauja Shakrala (Tehsil Kasumpti in District Simla) and the lands located in Palampur Tehsil (District Kangra). But in deciding the case, the lower courts did not take this private partition into account and, therefore, errors have been committed. But in deciding the case, the lower courts did not take this private partition into account and, therefore, errors have been committed. According to the petitioner, the land belonging to Mauja Shakrala pertains to his share according to the said private partition and that the impugned order should have allowed the same in his favour. 4. But these points had been analysed and discussed in detail by learned Commissioner in his order dated 30-9-1985. He has first held that there is no evidence on record to show that any such private partition have taken place by mutual consent of the parties except for tbe oral assertion of the petitioner In the revenue records of District Simla the land, on the other hand continues to be shown in the joint ownership of both the parties. 5. Since it is a case of joint holding, the learned Commissioner rejected the petitioners plea that he was having any exclusive possession of the same. 6. The other related plea of the petitioner is that in the impugned order, the lower courts should have taken into consideration also the lands jointly held in Palampur Tehsil for deciding the instant partition case. But the learned Commissioner has rightly held that the plea of partial partition is applicable to lands situated in the same revenue estates and not to lands situated in different revenue estates and in the instant case, the alleged joint holding is situated in even different Districts. Hence obviously the Assistant Collector, Kasumpti Tehsil, who had no jurisdiction over the lands situated in Tehsil Palampur, could not decide the partition case on the basis of lands held in that Tehsil as well. 7. I am inclined agree with the observations of the learned Commissioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner could not produce any authority in support of his contention that despite his lack of jurisdiction, the Revenue Officer Kasumpti should have dealt with the case with reference to lands pertaining to different Districts. He could not also establish any other material defects or apparent illegality about impugned order of the learned Commissioner. I, therefore, upheld the order of the learned Commissioner and dismiss the petition at the admission stage. Petition dismissed.