ORDER S.S. Negi, IAS :- This revision petition filed by the Sh. Shiv Kumar s/o Sh. Mela Ram Sharma resident of village Billanwali Gujaran. Tehsil Nalagarh seeks to review the order dated 12.4.2001 passed by this court in Revenue Revision No. 276/87 titled as Shiv Kumar versus Union of India & others whereby the revision of the present petitioner was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the present petitioner sought proprietary rights in respect of land measuring 58-16 Bighas situated in village Billanwali Gujaran belonging to the central Govt. as a non-occupancy tenant but the Assistant Collector Ilnd Grade rejected the mutation No. 253 on 19.12.1977 so entered by the Patwari Halqua in this regard. An appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Collector Nalagarh vide order dated 9.2.1984. The petitioner also cold not succeed in further appeal before the Commissioner Shim la Division who also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 9.4.1987. 3. Dissatisfied with this order of the Commissioner Shimla Division, the petitioner preferred the revision petition before my learned predecessor who also dismissed the revision vide order dated 12.4.2001. 4. Now the petitioner has sought review of this order on the grounds that he had cited two judgment of the Honble Supreme Court of India Viz AIR 1985 S.C. 1394 and AIR 1996 S.C. 3128 during arguments of the revision which were not discussed by this court while decided the revision petition. 5. The petitioner who himself is an advocate has reiterated that he is entitled to be conferred the ownership of the land being non-occupancy tenant thereon as per the law laid down in AIR 1985 SC 1394 and AIR 1996 SC 3128 which law was either ignored at the time of hearing the main revision petition or escaped the attention of the court. 6. The matter has been heard and the relevant records including the authorities laid down vide the aforesaid citations have also been perused. 7. The law referred to in first of the citations is AIR 1985 SC 1394 that refers to the question of repugnancy between central and State laws enacted on the same subject and applicability thereof to the facts and circumstances of each case. 7. The law referred to in first of the citations is AIR 1985 SC 1394 that refers to the question of repugnancy between central and State laws enacted on the same subject and applicability thereof to the facts and circumstances of each case. The case law is not applicable to the facts obtaining in the case before us as there is no such conflict emerging in the present case in the central and state. Therefore the citation is in no way applicable to the case in hand. 8. Another citation namely AIR 1996 SC 3128 deals with the security of land tenures of the tenants under Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1956 who under section 8 thereof were guaranteed a minimum of three years term under the landowners subject to certain exceptions. This case law is also not applicable to the case in hand as it has already been held that the petitioner was not tenant under the State of H.P. and his status was that of an Sic on the Land subsequent to the termination of a lease period of one year in 1968-69. Secondly, no such security of tenure has been provided to the tenants under H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972. Therefore this authority is also distinguishable. 9. The authorities thus do not advance the cause of the petitioner in any manner the same as not being relevant to the controversy before us. and it was in this view of the matter that they were not referred to in the order dated 12.4.2001 while disposing of the revision petition. 10. For these reasons discussed here-in-above the review petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 11. Orders be communicated to the parties and ease file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion. -