JUDGMENT S. S. Sidhu, I. A. S.—We propose to dispose of all the four revision petitions by a single order since the order challenged is the same in all the revision petitions. 2 Order dated 17-3-1988 of the Commissioner, Mandi Division, has been challenged by the petitioners by way of revision petitions No 171/88, 173/88, 174/88 and 175/88. 3. The facts of the case briefly stated are that S/Shri Ranbir Singh and Ramesh Chand are sons while Shri Ranjit Singh is the nephew of Shri Jodha Ram. Shri Ranjit Singh, who is a real nephew of Shri Jodha Ram, filed an application on 7-1-1985 for the partition of the joint holdings comprised in Khata No 15, Khatauni No. 25 Kitas 35, measuring 31 Kanals 16 Marlas, situated in village Chamyola, Tappa Bani, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur. While this application for partition was being processed, Shri Ranjit Singh made another application on 16-1-1985 to Tehsildar, Barsar, stating that he was in possession of Khasra Nos. 584 and 585 and his possession as Hissadar (co-sharer) be recorded. It is relevant to mention that main dispute is regarding these two Khasra numbers, which form part of the land sought to be partitioned. This application was sent by the Tehsildar to the Field Kanungo, who visited the spot and recorded the statements of respectable persons. Shri Jodha Ram though was present, he refused to make any statement. As per verification made by the Revenue Officer, the residential house and compound of Shri Ranjit Singh were found to be on Khasra Nos. 584 and 585. Shri Jodha Ram had made a statement on 20-2-1985 during the partition proceedings that he had no objection for the partition of the joint holdings. However, on 22-5-1985, his Counsel Shri M. R. Sharma, Advocate stated and asserted that whole of the joint holding was under the ownership of Shri Jodha Ram including the house built on Khasra Nos. 584 and 585 and the entry, which exists in the revenue record in favour of Shri Ranjit Singh, was wrong. He also stated that Shri Ranjit Singh was serving in the Army and was residing at the place of his posting. He argued that question of title in the case was involved and the application for partition be refused. Thereafter, the Revenue Officer ordered on 27-2-1985 to prepare ‘Fard Kabja Moka and Naksha Alif’ in respect of the joint holdings. He also stated that Shri Ranjit Singh was serving in the Army and was residing at the place of his posting. He argued that question of title in the case was involved and the application for partition be refused. Thereafter, the Revenue Officer ordered on 27-2-1985 to prepare ‘Fard Kabja Moka and Naksha Alif’ in respect of the joint holdings. According to the Fard Kabja Moka and Naksha Alif’ Khasra numbers 584 and 585 were shown under the possession of Shri Ranjit Singh whereas the rest of Khasra numbers were shown in the possession of Shri Jodha Ram. 4. While the partition proceedings were on, Shri Jodha Ram executed a gift deed on 8-10*1985 transferring his share of ownership in respect of Khasra Nos, 584 and 585 in favour of his sons S/Shri Ranbir Singh and Ramesh Chand The mutation in this respect was entered on 6-11-1985 but the same was rejected by the Assistant Collector. II Grade, on 23-12-1985 on the ground that the possession was with Shri Ranjit Singh and had not been transferred to S/Shri Ranbir Singh and Ramesh Chand. 5. The learned Assistant Collector, 1st Grade (Tehsildar), Barsar vide his order dated 17-11-1966 held that the entries in the Jamabandi in respect of shares of the parties were explicit and the joint holding being in possession of the owners could be partitioned as per shares and there was no question of title Involved. He sanctioned the mode of partition on the same day vide which, Khasra Nos. 584 and 585 were ordered to be given to the share of Shri Ranjit Singh since his house and courtyard were existing there and the excess allotment in these two Khasra numbers was ordered to be made good from other cultivated land. Shri Jodha Ram and his sons, S/Shri Ranbir Singh and Ramesh Chand assailed this order before the Collector (ADM), Hamirpur, who also held that there was no question of title involved but he ordered that a part of Khasra No. 585, which was vacant, be given to Shri Jodha Ram as his house in the abadi deh’ was found to be near that portion, vide his order dated 27-7-1987. This order dated 27-7-19b7 of the Collector (ADM), Hamirpur was challenged by S/Shri Jodha Ram, Ranbir Singh and Ramesh Chand by way of three separate revision petitions and by way of appeal by Shri Ranjit Singh, present respondent. This order dated 27-7-19b7 of the Collector (ADM), Hamirpur was challenged by S/Shri Jodha Ram, Ranbir Singh and Ramesh Chand by way of three separate revision petitions and by way of appeal by Shri Ranjit Singh, present respondent. The grievance of Shri Jodha Ram and his sons has been that the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Barsar ought to have refused the application for partition since the question of title was involved while the grievance of Shri Ranjit Singh was that vacant portion of Khasra No. 585 should not be given to Shri Jodha Ram and his sons S/Shri Ranbir Singh and Ramesh Chand. The learned Commissioner, Mandi Division, dismissed the revision petitions and accepted the appeal filed by Shri Ranjit Singh vide his single order dated 17-3-1988. The learned Commissioner, Mandi Division, held in his order that there was no question of title involved in the case and the land comprised in Khasra Nos 584 and 585 be partitioned alongwith other Khasra numbers by the Revenue Officer. He further held that it was clear from the report of the Field Kanungo that the house and courtyard of Shri Ranjit Singh was situated on Khasra Nos. 584 and 585 and the learned Collector (ADM), Hamirpur had erred in giving two marlas out of Khasra No. 585 to Shri Jodha Ram. In other words, he upheld the order dated 17-11-1986 of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Barsar. Now four separate revision petitions Nos. 171/88, 173/88, 174/88 and 175/88 have been filed against the order dated 17-3-1988 of the Commissioner, Mandi Division, by the petitioners. Shri Ranjit Singh happens to be the respondent in all these revision petitions. We have also found it expedient to dispose of all the revision petitions by a single order. 6. We have heard Shri A. C Dogra, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sushil Kumar Kanwar, Advocate, learned Counsel for the respondent. The perusal of record reveals that 2/3rd share of the land sought to be partitioned is of the petitioners while the rest of l/3rd is of the respondent, Shri Ranjit Singh. The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the order dated 27-7-1987 of the Collector (A. D. M.)« Hamirpur, should have been upheld since the vacant portion in Khasra No. 585 was adjacent to the house of Shri Jodha Ram. The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the order dated 27-7-1987 of the Collector (A. D. M.)« Hamirpur, should have been upheld since the vacant portion in Khasra No. 585 was adjacent to the house of Shri Jodha Ram. Shri Sushil Kumar Kanwar, Advocate, learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the Field Kanungo had visited the spot and prepared the Fard Kabja Moka and Naksha Alif’ while the Collector (A. D M.), Hamirpur bad not visited the spot since there is no inspection memo available on the record. He also argued that the District Collector, Hamirpur, had also visited the spot and he had found that house and courtyard of Shri Ranjit Singh, respondent, were situated on the disputed Khasra numbers. He also stated that the joint ownership was not denied by the petitioners and Shri Jodha Ram is not in exclusive possession of the entire property. It is very clear from the orders of the Revenue Officers below that the findings of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Barsar and of the Commissioner, Mandi Division, are concurrent so far as the possession of Shri Ranjit Singh over Khasra Nos. 584 and 585 is concerned. Possession is a question of fact, which cannot be gone into revision. There does not appear to be any irregularity or illegality in the orders of the learned Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Barsar and the Commissioner, Mandi Division. So far as the question of title is concerned, the findings of the learned Collector (A. D. M), Hamirpur, are also the same as of the other two Revenue Officers. 7. In view of the position stated above, the order dated 17-3-1988 of the Commissioner, Mandi Division, is upheld and the revision petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed. 8. Original order be placed on file pertaining to Revision Petition No. 171/88 and copies thereof on the other revision petitions. Order be communicated. Revision dismissed.