ORDER 1. The present revision petition has come up for consideration on the recommendations of Commissioner, Shimla Division, Shimla made vide his order dated 01.12.1998 passed in Revenue Revision No. 124/98 whereby the orders dated 10.09.1996 passed by the assistant collector 1st Grade in partition proceedings, and upheld be the Sub-Divisional Collector, Paonta Sahib vide his orders dated 31.03.1998 on appeal are sought to be revised. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Shri Sawraj Singh the present respondent No.1 made an application to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Paonta Sahib for partitioning of his share in the land in Khata Khatauni no. 66/142 to 144 Kitas3 measuring 14 Bighas 15 Biswas situated in Mauza Puruwala. Tehsil Poanta Sahib. The Assistant Collector 1st grade commenced the proceeding on the application. In course of which on 29.09.1994 he ordered the mode of partition and subsequently vide order dated. 10.08.1996, of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade also sanctioned the instrument of partition. Against the order dated 10.09.1996 of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade the present petitioner Shri Dapinder Singh filed an appeal before the collector Sub-Division, Paonta Sahib on the grounds that the petitioner was condemned unheard by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade at the time of framing of mode of partition and even at the time of confirming the partition. The petitioner stated that there were 7 co-sharers in the Khata to be partitioned bur Smt. Kala and Smt. Baro co-sharers were not given any land in the partition and the Assistant Collector below has only given undue advantage to the respondent. No. 1 by alloting him the best land on the spot, irrespective of the fact that the petitioner was in actual possession of the aforesaid land. The petitioner further alleged that he was alloted interior land. The collector, Sub-Division Paonta Sahib after hearing the parties and going through the record dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 31.03.1998. Dis-satisfied with the above order dated 31.03.1998 of the Collector, the petitioner filed revision u/s 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act before the Divisional commissioner, Shimla on the ground that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to participate in the partition proceeding by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade as ordered on 10-09-1996. Dis-satisfied with the above order dated 31.03.1998 of the Collector, the petitioner filed revision u/s 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act before the Divisional commissioner, Shimla on the ground that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to participate in the partition proceeding by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade as ordered on 10-09-1996. He further agitated that the court below had ignored the fact of actual possession of the petitioner as the petitioner has raised the construction which was 5 feet in height and one foot in breadth and for this purpose the co-sharers had given an affidavit that they will not disturb the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had further submitted that he had purchased this land from Shri Somti son of Shri Sakar and at that time the wife of Seller, Smt. Baro had given affidavit to the fact that they will not disturb the possession of the present petitioner. The Learned Commissioner after hearing the parties and going through the record found that, though the petitioner was not associated with the partition proceedings, but still the Assistant Collector should have protected the possession of the parties in accordance with the mode of partition at the time of actual partition on the spot, as according to Divisional Commissioner, the petitioner was in possession of the land as per tatima drawn up at the time of registration of transfer sale deed in his favour. The Commissioner, Shimla Division accordingly recommended for acceptance to this court that the matter need be remitted to the Sub-Division Collector, Paonta to see whether the partition has been ( carried out in accordance with the mode of partition, That is how the matter is before us for consideration u/s 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. 3. The records of the case were reguisitioned and have been gone through. We have also perused the orders including the recommendations made by the Commissioner. The parties have also been heard at length. 4. The learned counsel for petitioner has emphatically argued for acceptance of the recommendation made by the commissioner as according to the learned counsel, final partition has not been carried out in accordance with the mode of partition and possession has not been protected. The parties have also been heard at length. 4. The learned counsel for petitioner has emphatically argued for acceptance of the recommendation made by the commissioner as according to the learned counsel, final partition has not been carried out in accordance with the mode of partition and possession has not been protected. He also pleaded that proper opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the petitioner in the partition proceedings before Assistant Collector in Absence of which no equitable partition could have been carried out on the spot. 5. The learned counsel for respondent controverted the contentions long by submitting that there has been no infringement of the mode of partition while carrying out the final partition and the petitioner was proceeded ex-part e only after due service was effected upon him and as such the petitioner cannot feign ignorance at this stage that he was not aware of the partition proceedings. 6. After having heard the parties and going through the records of the case I am inclined to accept the revision petition not wholly for the reasons brought out by the Commissioner in the impugned recommendations for invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this court. The point that there has been infraction of the mode of partition while carrying out the actual partition is well taken by the learned Commissioner since according to petitioner he was in possession of his share in the land in accordance with a specific tatima drawn up at the time of the registration of sale deed executed by the petitioner at the time of purchasing the land. The petitioner claims his possession on the spot since the purchase of the land on the basis of affidavits furnished by the sellers to the effect that his possession shall not be disturbed. Therefore the claim of the petitioner need be scrutinized equitably. 7. Secondly, perusal of the case file of the Assistant Collector shows that on 23-03-1996 he ordered the General Power of Attorney of the respondent to bring on record the entire papers i.e. Jamabandi showing the entire land appurtenant to the Khata under partition and the entire share holders, it appears that the Assistant Collector prior to 23.3.1996 had neither (sic), all the parties before him nor entire land was made the subject of partition i.e. proceedings for partition was partial as to share holders as well as total land for partition. The General power of Attorney does not appear to have complied with the instruction of the Assistant Collector as noted by him-in his order dated 04-05-1996. But the Assistant Collector took a sudden turn on 04-06-1996, on which date be took note of the fact that some parties stood expired but neither their legal representatives appear to have been brought on record nor the previous instruction of the Assistant Collector for bringing all the share holders on record and including for partition the entire land was complied with. Therefore entire partition proceeding before Assistant collector appears to be partial both as to the share holders as well as the land to be partitioned. It is by now a settled law that there cannot be a partial partition. The Assistant Collector has proceeded with the matter in a very casual manner and has been very remiss in applying his mind to the facts and law involved in the matter. 8. In view of these reasons, the revision petition is accepted and the case in remanded to the Collector who shall examine the entire partition proceeding to find out whether there has been a partial partition as to parties and whether entire land has been subjected to partition. It the answer for this proposition is in the negative, then he shall examine whether there has been infraction of mode of partition with respect to possession while carrying out the actual partition. Parties be afforded due opportunity in the ensuing proceedings. 9. Order be communicated to the parties and the file of this court be consigned to Record Room after due completion.