ORDER Mukul Joshi, F.C. - This is revision petition against the order of the Addl. Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala dated 29.9.1999 vide which he rejected a revision petition filed by the present petitioners against the order of the Collector, Samrala dated 17.1.1991. Vide this order the Collector had rejected an appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Samrala dated 31.10.1990 vide which he had rejected the objections raised by the petitioner to the partition of land in question on the grounds that the same land had been partitioned earlier by the order of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade dated 1.3.1976. The details of the same are contained in the orders of the lower revenue authorities and need not be gone into. 2. The basic point in this case is whether if a joint holding has been partitioned earlier, and the partition proceedings have not been completed and the entry not been made in the revenue records, a fresh partition can be carried out on a subsequent date on the basis of a fresh application. In the present case the partition proceedings were commenced in respect of the present land in 1975, and vide order dated 1.3.1976 the Assistant Collector partitioned the land. However, the Sanad of partition was not prepared and the partition was not entered in the revenue records. The lower revenue authorities have held that in view of the non-completion of partition proceedings and their non-implementation in the revenue record, these proceedings are treated to have lapsed and cannot stand in the way of fresh partition proceedings. 3. On behalf of the petitioners it was argued that the land had already been partitioned, and since this was the case, in accordance with the revenue law this land cannot be partitioned again. Reference was made to the judgment in 1999 (Vol. I) RCR (Civil) Page 128 in which it has been held that the partition of the same land is not permissible. It was further urged that the Authority relied upon in the order of the Commissioner, i.e. 1998(2) RCR Civil page 531, is not relevant in this case because in that case both the parties had given acquiescence. In the present case physical partition had been done, possession given, but this had not been given effect to in the relevant Jamabandi i.e. Jamabandi of 1984. 4. In the present case physical partition had been done, possession given, but this had not been given effect to in the relevant Jamabandi i.e. Jamabandi of 1984. 4. On behalf of the respondents it was argued that the so called partition of 1976 was no partition at all, since partition proceedings had not been taken to their logical end in the form of issue of Sanad, giving of possession and required change in the Jamabandi. It was correct that the Assistant Collector had passed an order dated 1.3.1976, but this partition order had never been implemented. As such, therefore, it could not stand any way in the way of these proceedings. 5. I have gone through the relevant file and heard the arguments of the counsels. It is clear that, as contained in the order of the Assistant Collector dated 1.3.1976, although a partition was decreed, the instrument of partition i.e. Sanad was not issued and the partition was not incorporated in the revenue records. It can safely be inferred, therefore, that the partition was not effected. Under the circumstances this case falls squarely under the ambit of the ruling in 1998(2) RCR Civil Page 531, the authority on which the Commissioner has relied. There is no explanation offered as to why and how order of partition proceedings dated 1.3.1976 remained un-implemented and as such it indicates lack of interest and indifference on the part of co-sharers to those proceedings. They, therefore cease to have any relevance and cannot come in the way of the present partition proceedings. 6. In view of this, the revision petition is dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector, Samrala on 26.5.2004. To be communicated. Revision dismissed.