JUDGMENT S. S. Sidhu, I. A. S.—Shri Ludan and others, successors-in-interest of Shri Mangtoo have filed this revision petition under section 17 of H. P. Land Revenue Act against order dated 24-10-1986 of the Commissioner, Mandi Division. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that Shri Mangtoo filed an application before the Revenue Assistant, Bilaspur for correction of Khasra Girdwari entries in respect of field No. 359, measuring 10-16 Bighas, situated in Village Takrehra, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. From the enquiry, which was got conducted through the Naib-Tehsildar, Ghumarwin, it was found that Khasra No 359 including some other land of Shri Sewak and others, who were landlords, was originally in the occupancy tenancy of one Shri Dugla, to whose inheritance, Shri Mangtoo brought forward his claim, Shri Dugla having died issueless. The mutation was attested in favour of Shri Mangtoo but Sewak and others filed a suit against him in the civil court and obtained a decree from the Court of Sub-Judge, Bilaspur. According to which, the landlords had become entitled to be put in possession of the tenancy land since the occupancy rights of Dugla had got extinguished on his death. The judgment of the Sub-Judge, Bilaspur was set aside by the District Judge in an appeal, but the Honble Judicial Commissioner in his decision dated 28-12-1966, set aside the order of District Judge and upheld the decision of the Sub-Judge. Consequent upon the order of the Honble Judicial Commissioner, Shri Sewak and others, landlords were put in possession in execution proceedings on 22-4-1958 by warrant of possession. After hearing the parties, the learned Revenue Assistant vide his order dated 28-11-1967 rejected the application of Shri Mangtoo and held that Shri Duhla, respondent continued to hold possession of Khasra No. 359 Min, measuring 5-16 Bighas as Hisscdar Malik and not as tenant-at-will, after the possession was delivered to him in execution of decree of the civil court. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28-11-1967, Shri Mangtoo filed an appeal before Shri Attar Singh, the then District Collector, Bilaspur, who accepted the appeal vide his order dated 27-5-1969 Shri Dulha, respondent filed a review application before Shri Attar Singh, the then District Collector, Bilaspur, under section 16 of H. P. Land Revenue Act for reviewing his order dated 27-5-1969 passed by him in appeal No 11/2 of 1968, titled Mangtu v. Duhla". Shri Attar Singh, on review, made his order more clear and explicit and ordered on 30-10-1909 that the appeal filed by Shri Mangtoo be deemed to have been accepted to the extent only that Shri Duhla, respondent be entered as Hissedar Malik in the revenue papers. In other words, on review, Shri Attar Singh ordered that Shri Duhla, respondent be recorded as Hissedar Malik instead of tenant-at-will and also maintained the order of the Revenue Assistant, Bilaspur in other aspects as well. The order dated 30-10-1969 of the District Collector, Bilaspur was challenged before the Commissioner, Mandi Division, in an appeal by Shri Mangtoo During the pendency of the appeal, Shri Mangtoo expired and the present petitioners were brought on record as his L. Rs. The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, dismissed the appeal vide her order dated 24-10 1986 and upheld the order dated 30-10-1969 of the District Collector, Bilaspur. Now the petitioners have come in revision before me against the order dated 24-10-1986 of the learned Divisional Commissioner. 4. I have gone through the record and have also heard the arguments adduced by the learned Counsel on both the sides. The grounds taken by the petitioners are that the Divisional Commissioner had fixed the case at Ghumarwin when their counsel was at Chandigarh in connection with serious illness of his son and could not attend the court at Ghumarwin. They have stated that though this fact was brought to the notice of the learned Divisional Commissioner yet she refused to grant short adjournment. Another ground taken by the petitioners is that they did not know anything in particular about legal implication involved since they had stepped in as legal representatives of Shri Mangtoo, deceased. They have stated that the learned Collector had no jurisdiction to make clarification in the order which had been passed by him on 27-5-1969. The perusal of record reveals that the learned Divisional Commissioner had heard both the parties at length and had also gone through the record of the lower Courts minutely. Thus it becomes clear that the petitioners as well as their predecessor in-interest have been given full opportunity of being heard by all the Revenue Officers below. It will be incorrect to say that they were not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thus it becomes clear that the petitioners as well as their predecessor in-interest have been given full opportunity of being heard by all the Revenue Officers below. It will be incorrect to say that they were not provided reasonable opportunity of being heard. We also % cannot agree with the plea of the petitioners that the District Collector, Bilaspur, was not competent to review his order. The provisions of section 16 (1) of the H P. Land Revenue Act are unambiguous. It has been provided under section 16 (1) of the .Act ibid that a Revenue Officer may, either of his own motion or on the application of any party interested, review, and on so reviewing modify, reverse or confirm, any order passed by himself or by any of his predecessors in office The later part of the subsection relates to the order which might have been passed by his predecessors in office. The order dated 27-5-1969 had been passed by Shri Attar Singh. Thus, he was fully competent to review that order by his I subsequent order dated 30-10-1969 There is no illegality in interpretation I of section 16 by the learned District Collector. The learned Divisional Commissioner was also right in upholding that order. The Revenue Assistant, in exercising the powers of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Bilaspur, had held the respondent to be Hissedar Malik only after proper enquiry. Moreover, the orders of the learned Judicial Commissioner were in favour of Shri Dubla, who was one of the landlords alongwith Shri Sewak and others It can safely be said that there is no merit in the revision petition filed by the petitioners. 5. In view of the discussion above, the revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Order dated 24-10-1986 of the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi upholding the order dated 30-10-1969 of the District Collector, Bilaspur, is upheld. Order be communicated.