ORDER S.S. Negi, IAS. :- This revision petition under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. 1953 preferred by Shri Tarsem Lal Sharma son of Shankar Dass. resident of village Tikkar. Tehsil Nurpur. Distt. Kangra. is directed against the order dated 19.08.1998 passed by the Divisional Commissioner. Kangra Division in revision petition No.60/97 and 61/97 whereby both the revision petitions were dismissed by him by a single order which is under challenge. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that Shri Harbans Lal and Ashok Kumar present respondents No.l and 2 filed two separate applications before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. Nurpur seeking partition of Land jointly held by them with other parties comprised in khata No.21 khatoni No.53.54.55.56.57 kita 18 measuring 2-03-27 Hect. situated in Mohal Kehrna. Manza Aghai Tehsil Nurpur as per Jamabandi for the year 1991-92 and in khata No.l 1 khatoni No.25.26 and 27 kita 8 measuring 0-87-05 Hect. situated in Mohal Tikkar. Mauza Panjahara. Tehsil Nurpur as per Jamabandi for the year 1992-93 3. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade Nurpur after issuing notices to the parties held preliminary inquiry, with a view to formulate the mode of partition and finally vide order dated 06.04.1996. approved mode of partition. 4. Against this order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. Nurpur dated 06.04.1996. Shri Tarsem Lal the present petitioner filed two separate appeals before the Sub-Divisional Collector Nurpur on the grounds that there existed houses, shop and other built up area on the spot constructed by him and therefore the land under Abadi cannot be partitioned. It was contended that during partition proceedings before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, he had raised objection with regard to question of title in both the cases which had been rejected and that he had not been given any opportunity to produce a Will which was said to have executed in his favour by his father vide which he (present petitioner) was the sole owner of the property and that at the time of formulation of mode of partition, he had not been heard. 5. The learned Collector. Nurpur after hearing both the parties and going through the record held that khasra No.561 measuring 0-00-91 Hect. 5. The learned Collector. Nurpur after hearing both the parties and going through the record held that khasra No.561 measuring 0-00-91 Hect. only was recorded as Abadi in the records and rest of the land was cultivable land and both parties had been recorded as co-owners of the land and the applications were entitled to get their share partitioned. He therefore dismissed both the appeals vide order dated 30.09.1996. 6. Aggrieved of this order of the.Sub-Divisional Collector. Nurpur dated 30.09.1996. Shri Tarsem Lal present petitioner preferred two separate revision petitions before the Divisional Commissioner Kangra. 7. He learned Divisional Commissioner. Kangra after hearing both the parties and perusal of record, dismissed the revision petitions by a single order dated 19.08.1998. which order is under challenge in the present revision petition lodged by the petitioners. 8. The record of the case were requsitioned and the parties were afforded opportunity to address their claims in this court. 9. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that the lower courts have failed to appreciate the legal position that Abadi cannot be partitioned by the Revenue Officer. The petitioner, according to learned counsel has raised construction on different plots by investing huge sum of money which cannot be subject to partition. 10. Perusal of record shows that there is substantial land other1, than Abadi land which is recorded in join ownership of the parties in | which any of the parties has the right to seek partition of his share. Therefore, the petitioner cannot stop the respondents from seeking their share in the joint property. Whereas the question of partition of Abadi land is concerned, the Assistant Collector has already made a provision in clause 3 of mode of partition that the Abadi area would be allotted to the person who has built up or constructed such abadi. Therefore the provision for apportionment of Abadi to the person who has constructed it is in order or else if the petitioner or any of the parties do not agree to the partition of Abadi in accordance with clause-3 of the mode of partition then the Abadi or built up area are liable to be excluded from the purview of the partition and is to be kept joint. Therefore if the petitioner still opposes, though he has not opposed clause-3 of the mode of partition in this court, the partition is directed to go ahead as per mode of the partition. In case petitioner oppose clause-3 of the mode of partition, then the area under Abadi be kept joint. In view of this, the contention of the petitioner lacks force and is therefore dismissed. 11. The learned counsel for petitioner has further contended that there is question of title in the matter which need be decided before proceeding with partition. The petitioner has not substantiated his plea as to how question of title is involved, in the matter, nor is there any material on record which suggest that such a question is involved in the matter. Consequently, the revision petition is without any force and therefore dismissed. 12. Orders be communicated to the parties and case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.