ORDER Rupan Deol Bajaj, F.C. - This is a review petition in a case decided by one of my predecessors Shri Karl Reddy, IAS on 20.3.2003. The matter involves mutation of property of Shri Shamsher Singh deceased, which has been disputed on one hand by his first wife Balwinder Kaur and two daughters Manjit Kaur and Gurjit Kaur and on the other hand by second wife Smt. Gurmeet Kaur and her two minor sons Gagandeep Singh and Inderbir Singh. The AC Ist Grade whose order was further upheld by the Collector, has mutated the land on the basis of natural inheritance giving the two widows 1/2 share each out of 1/5th share (i.e. 1/10th each) and the remaining property amongst the four children i.e. 1/5th share each. However, the Commissioner had not set aside the orders of the two courts below and had decided that the 2nd lady Smt. Gurmit Kaur was not entitled to any share. While deciding the revision in the matter preferred by the wife, Smt. Balwinder Kaur (who had prayed that all three orders of the Courts below be set aside), the Financial Commissioner Shri Karl Reddy has mentioned that enough evidence had been led on the factum of second marriage, which had been accepted in the concurrent findings of two revenue officers below. The Commissioner had gone into question of legitimacy of the second marriage as well as regarding the law with regarding to co-parcenary property rights and had held that the second wife Gurmeet Kaur was not entitled to any property. Thus, he had set aside the previous orders and ruled that widow Balwinder Kaur, her two daughters as well as two sons of the other lady i.e. Gurmeet Kaur were entitled to 1/5th share each. 2. The grievance of the petitioner before me is that the then ld. Financial Commissioner has set aside the order only of the Commissioner and has specifically upheld that the previous two orders of the AC Ist Grade and the Collector, in which the second wife had also got 1/10th share. He pointed out that in fact the Commissioners order qua Gurmit Kaur denying her any share was final, since she had chosen not to prefer any appeal against the order and that the Financial Commissioner had, in the manner done, given her an advantage to which she was not entitled. He pointed out that in fact the Commissioners order qua Gurmit Kaur denying her any share was final, since she had chosen not to prefer any appeal against the order and that the Financial Commissioner had, in the manner done, given her an advantage to which she was not entitled. He stated that the Financial Commissioner had also not mentioned in the operating part of his order that the revision was accepted or rejected and thus submits it is a fit case for review and clarification. 3. I have gone through the record on file and have heard both counsel. I find that my ld. predecessor has given a well-reasoned and clear order in support of his conclusions, and there is no non-clarity in the order. He has not accepted the revision petition in its entirety, which asked for the setting aside of all three orders but has set aside only the order of Commissioner, thus reviving the orders of two courts below. A different Financial Commissioner could have decided the case in a different manner, but that is no reason to review the order of the previous incumbent. The petitioner should have preferred an appeal instead of a review. The review petition is hereby rejected. Announced. Petition dismissed.