ORDER R. Bhattacharya.—This revision petition filed by Shri Chaudhary Ram son of Shri Baru Ram r/o Tikka Chiana Kalan, Mauja Chiana Kalan, Tehsil Dharmashala is directed against the order dated 7.12.1996 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division by which he dismissed the second appeal of the petitioner against the orders of the Collector, Kangra District. 2. Briefly noted the facts of the case are that the present respondent Bimla Devi d/o Chattar Singh filed an application on 27.11.1975 for resumption of land for self cultivation held by the tenants namely Chaudhary Ram, Bhagat Ram sons of Baru Ram, Chuni Lal, Om Prakash, Purshotam, Dharam Chand s/o Rijhu and Madho s/o Nawang Saudho wd/o Udho all residents of village Thamba, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra. The application appears to have not been taken up for consideration for a considerable period of time up to the year 1991, when the Land Reforms Officer Kangra finally allowed the said application vide his orders dated 31.8.1991 and ordered that half of the irrigated land with the said tenants be resumed in favour of the land owner to make her holding under self cultivation 1 acre. One of the tenants Shri Chaudhary Ram filed an appeal before the Collector, Kangra on the ground that Smt. Bimla owned more than prescribed land in her cultivation in village Mangwal which was not taken into account at the time of allowing resumption of land by the Land Reforms Officer. The said Collector after hearing the parties and going through the record of the case remanded the case to the Land Reforms Officer with the direction to decide the case afresh keeping in view the holdings of the applicant under self cultivation at the said village Mangwal. The Land Reforms Officer proceeded afresh with the matter and rejected the plea of the petitioner on the ground that the land in the said village was "Kharetar" land not fit for cultivation and affirmed the earlier order of Land Reforms Officer dated 30.8.1991 vide his orders dated 15.9.1992. This order was again challenged in appeal by the present petitioner before Collector, Dharamshala who rejected the appeal on 7.6.1993, still dissatisfied the petitioner preferred second appeal before the Commissioner, Kangra Division which was also rejected by him by passing the order under challenge by way of the present revision petition before us. 3. This order was again challenged in appeal by the present petitioner before Collector, Dharamshala who rejected the appeal on 7.6.1993, still dissatisfied the petitioner preferred second appeal before the Commissioner, Kangra Division which was also rejected by him by passing the order under challenge by way of the present revision petition before us. 3. The petitioner has reiterated all the grounds taken before the lower Courts. 4. The records of the case was requisitioned which have been perused. I have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of both the parties. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the application (LRV) for resumption of land held by the tenants was filed after period of limitation on 27.11.1975 since the time for filing the said application was upto 30 days from the commencement of the Rules on 3.10.1975. This plea lacks any substance since the limitation for filing application for resumption of land held under tenants under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act was up to 31.12.1975, though initially the prescribed period was only 30 days from the commencement of the Rules w.e.f. 3.10.1975. In fact, the prescribed period for filing resumption application was extended by the Government of Himachal Pradesh by a subsequent notification upto 31.12.1975. Therefore, the said application was filed within the prescribed period under the law and the plea of the petitioner on this count is without any substance and is accordingly rejected. 6. The petitioner has also questioned the legality of the impugned orders on the ground that the said land owner has more than 3 acres of land with her as a consequence of surrendering of land by the tenants of the respondent landlady. The petitioner has not substantiated his contention by placing on record the relevant revenue record to suggest such a proposition, though that would not completely immune the petitioner from surrendering the land in proportion to his liability and resumble by the landowner under the law. The petitioner has not substantiated his contention by placing on record the relevant revenue record to suggest such a proposition, though that would not completely immune the petitioner from surrendering the land in proportion to his liability and resumble by the landowner under the law. The contention of the petitioner that the land of the petitioner in Tika Majwal and Tika Dari has not been taken into consideration is also without merit, since this was the precise ground on which the matter was first remanded by Collector, Dharamshala on 16.3.1992 to the Land Reforms Officer who again went into this question and found that the said land being Kharetar was not under self cultivation of the said landowner and she was entitled for resumption of land held by tenants upon the limit prescribed by law. There is no illegality and irregularity in dismissing this contention of the petitioner by the lower Courts. 7. In the result this revision petition is without any force and is accordingly rejected. 8. Orders be communicated. Record of this Court be consigned to Record Room after due completion. Revision dismissed.