ORDER 1. This revision petition preferred by petitioner Ram Rakesh Pal S/O Chuni Lal is directed against the order dated 11.6.1997 passed by the Commissioner, Kangra Division in revision No. 267 of 1995. 2. Briefly noted, the facts are that petitioner Ram Rakesh Pal, son of Chuni Lal owned & possessed land measuring 0-07-23 hects in Mohal Haripur of Tehsil Dehra in Kangra Distt. The respondents namely Smt. Raksha Devi and three others are daughter and Smt. Rupi is widow of the said Chuni Lal. 3. The respondents Raksha Devi & others filed an application before the Assistant Collector Dehra requesting therein that their share in land bearing Kh. No. 93,93,95 measuring 0-07-23 situated village , Haripur, Tehsil Dehra be partitioned. The petitioner Ram Rakesh Pal t objected the partition on the plea that question of title was involved in the matter which needed be settled before the partition was carried out. The question of title was sought to be raised on the ground that said Chuni Lal was as tenant on the impugned land and respondents are not entitled to inherit the tenancy in accordance with Section 45 of I HP. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The Assistant Collector brushed aside the plea vide order dated 04.08.1993 and proceeded to formulate the mode of partition. The Petitioner assailed this order before the Sub-Divisional Collector, in appeal, who dismissed the same vide his order dated 23-8-1995. A revision pelilion filed against this order before the Commissioner Kangra Division was also dismissed by him on 11.6.1997, and this order now has been challenged by the petitioner before us in the present revision petition. 4. The records were requisitioned and the parties were afforded due opportunity to address their claims in support their pleas. 5. The learned counsel for petitioner has reiterated his claim that the petitioner alone is entitled to inherit the tenancy of his father I under section 45 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and his I sisters and mother are not entitled to any share in the property and consequently the land in not liable to be partitioned and thus the application before the Assistant Collector for partition is not maintainable. 6. 6. After careful consideration of the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and perusal of records of the case, we have not been able to agree to the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner. 7. The admitted position of the matter is that the predecessor of the parties was a tenant on the land in question, irrespective of the ownership of the land held by different owners at different times. After coming into force the H.P. land Reforms Act and Rules made there under, the said Chuni Lal acquired ownership rights by operation of law on 4.12.1975. The date notified for the purpose of acquisition of proprietary right by tenant holding land under various land owner under the provision of section 104 at the Act. This is also an admitted position that the said Chuni Lal died much after that dated i.e. 4-12-1975. After his death mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned on 24.12.1982. Therefore the predecessor of the parties Sh. Chuni Lal was a landowner in his own right at the time of his death and his succession rightly devolved in favour of the petitioners and! respondents in accordance with the provision of Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the respondents did not rightly inherit the succession of Sh. Chuni Lal. The result of this discussion is that the respondents are owners in equal shares with the petitioner and are entitled to seek partition of their shares recorded in the record of the rights. Therefore the revision petition lacks any force and is accordingly rejected. Orders be communicated to the parties and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.