ORDER R. Bhattacharya.—One Shri Mahia (since deceased) son of Sh. Bala Ram, resident of Village Bhar, Pargana Kalahanj, Teh. and Distt. Shimla H.P. presented an application before Assistant Collector 1st grade Shimla on 20.8.1993 requesting therein that the revenue entries in Jamabandies and Khasra Gardawaries for the year 1987-88 and thereafter be corrected by recording his name in column of possession by deleting therefrom the name of the present petitioner. The application was forwarded by the Assistant Collector to the revenue field agency for report and the report was made by the field Kanungo during December, 1993. The Assistant Collector after receiving the report ordered the correction to be made by ordering to record one Smt. Devkoo Devi D/o Mahia (Mahia died during the pendency of the proceedings) in possession of land appurtenant to Khata/Khatauni No. 11/13 measuring 44-7 Bighas. One Shri Ram Duct son of Shri Shounk Ram filed an appeal against the said order before the Sub-Divisional Collector on the ground that he was in possession alongwith the present petitioner and the order passed by the Assistant Collector was in absence of the land owners. The appeal was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Collector without assigning any plausible reasons and squarely dealing with the points raised in the appeal. Dissatisfied therewith the present petitioner and Sh. Baldev Singh son of Sh. Jeet Ram, who was a respondent before the lower Court, filed the present revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner Shimla who has recommended to us that the lower Courts order be set aside. That is how we are presently ceased of the matter under Section 17 of Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. 2. The parties have been heard as also the record available on the lower Courts file have been perused. 3. The scrutiny of the lower Courts record would reveal that the matter has been dealt with in a very hot haste manner. The original applicant had arrayed a number of respondents, rightly so, in his original application presented before the Assistant Collector whose valuable rights to possession were to affect as a result of the application. The Assistant Collector without applying his mind to the facts of the case, without caring to call to hear the parties to the case, went on to record the possession of the respondent No. 1 on the basis of the report of the Field Kanungo. The Assistant Collector without applying his mind to the facts of the case, without caring to call to hear the parties to the case, went on to record the possession of the respondent No. 1 on the basis of the report of the Field Kanungo. He did not care to afford an opportunity of being heard to all the parties arrayed in the application as also recorded in the revenue record. The Sub-Divisional Collector also did not properly deal with the proceedings and confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector, so much so that he has not cared to record the version of the present petitioner No. 2, whose possession as a result of the order has been altered. Since the parties to the case have not been heard by the Revenue Officer of the first instance nor by the appellate authority, the orders passed by them cannot stand. The Divisional Commissioner Shimla has recommended that the orders passed by the lower Court deserve to be set aside. The respondent has filed a cross revision against the recommendations which has been registered Revision No. 332/96 of 1996. Since this revision petition also arises out of the same order, the two were clubbed together for hearing and are disposed of by this single order. The plea taken in this revision petition is also identical namely that Smt. Devkoo succeeded to the estate of the deceased Mahia and she is in actual possession of the land in question. In view of the above the order of Assistant Collector cannot stand since the parties including the petitioner No. 2 cannot be dispossessed from the land in such a summary manner. Resultantly the orders passed by Assistant Collector and the Collector Sub-Division are set aside and recommendations made by the Divisional Commissioner are accepted to that extent. This order shall not bar another application before the Assistant Collector on the same cause of action, but the Assistant Collector, if such an application is made before him, shall afford due opportunity to all the co-owners and those who are in possession of the land in question and are likely to be affected by the orders of the Assistant Collector. 4. Orders be communicated to the parties and file be consigned to record room after due completion. Petition allowed.