ORDER Dr. A.S. Basu, EC. (Appeals). - This revision petition has been filed under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 against an order dated 23.1.1999 passed by the learned Commissioner Mandi Division who had dismissed an appeal filed before him under Section 14 of the Act against an order of Collector, Sub-Division Barsar dated 29.6.1992. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present respondents filed an application for partition of land comprised in khasra No. 1 khatoni No. 1, Kita 61 measuring 104 Kanals 13 Marlas situated in Tika Thamani Manjhli, Mauza Lohadar, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur who before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Barsar vide an order dated 18.3.1991 fixed the matter for recording of statements of the parties and for devising the mode of partition on 2.5.1991 after rejecting an objection filed by the present respondents whereby it had been claimed that Shri Jagir Singh was recorded as a non occupancy tenant under one Shri Shamsher Singh co-owner as per Jamabandi for the year 1981-82 and has obtained proprietary rights on 27.7.1982, hence he could only claim partition accordingly. The present respondents preferred an appeal against the same before the Collector Sub-Division Barsar on 1.11.1991. During the course of arguments before the learned Collector, it was contended on behalf of the appellants (i.e. the present respondents) that an application for correction of the revenue entries has been decided by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Barsar on 24.2.1992 which has been implemented in the revenue record vide Rapat No. 247 dated 13.3.1992 and hence the partition should be carried out accordingly. While accepting this contention vide order dated 29.6.1992, the Collector directed that the partition may be done as per the decision of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade dated 24.2.1992. This order was assailed in appeal before the Commissioner Mandi Division by the present petitioner. The learned Commissioner vide his order dated 23.1.1999, has held that the Sub-Divisional Collector Barsar should have not entertained an appeal against an interlocutory order dated 18.3.1991. He further held that since the Sub-Divisional Collector has heard and decided the matter in appeal, no second appeal is maintainable under the Act. The learned Commissioner however, further observed that the Collector had committed no illegality in referring to the correction application and that he had rightly directed the Assistant Collector 1st Grade to proceed with the partition accordingly. He further held that since the Sub-Divisional Collector has heard and decided the matter in appeal, no second appeal is maintainable under the Act. The learned Commissioner however, further observed that the Collector had committed no illegality in referring to the correction application and that he had rightly directed the Assistant Collector 1st Grade to proceed with the partition accordingly. Aggrieved by this order of the Commissioner Mandi Division dated 23.1.1999, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition. 3. The record of the Courts below was called for and examined. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties were heard in addition to perusing of the written arguments filed by them. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Subhash Sharma has argued that the application for correction of revenue entries was filed by the respondents on 1st May, 1991. The petitioner moved an application before the District Collector under Section 13 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act for withdrawing the application for correction from the Tehsildar Barsar and transferring the same to other Revenue Officer. The learned District Collector issued an order on 12.2.1992 staying the proceedings of correction pending before the Tehsildar Barsar and a copy of the same was sent to the Tehsildar to furnish comments within 15 days. The Tehsildar, instead of complying with the order dated 12.2.1992 proceeded to decide the matter on 24.2.1992 thereby tampering with the revenue entries despite a stay order by a higher officer. The learned Counsel averred that the respondents, filed an appeal against an order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Barsar dated 18.3.1991 passed during the course of partition proceedings. The Collector in stark disregard to legal procedure, imported the order dated Tehsildar Barsar and also, at the same time, dismissed the appeal. The learned Counsel contended that when the order dated 18.3.1991 passed in partition proceedings was well within the knowledge of the Tehsildar Barsar he should not have entertained the application for correction of revenue entries. Secondly, when a stay order against the proceedings of correction was in vogue, the Tehsildar could not have proceeded to decide the application. The learned Counsel contended that when the order dated 18.3.1991 passed in partition proceedings was well within the knowledge of the Tehsildar Barsar he should not have entertained the application for correction of revenue entries. Secondly, when a stay order against the proceedings of correction was in vogue, the Tehsildar could not have proceeded to decide the application. The learned Counsel further contended that it is strange to observe that while adjudicating in appeal upon the order passed on 18.3.1991 in partition proceedings by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, the Sub-Divisional Collector drifted towards the illegal order of correction dated 24.2.1992 passed in a different proceeding. A grave irregularity committed by the collector is that while dismissing the appeal against the order dated 18.3.1991; he has directed the Assistant Collector to proceed with the partition in accordance with the correction orders of 24.2.1992 in an entirely different case. The learned Counsel pointed out that the Act provides for an appeal against an order of the Collector to the Commissioner and so the learned Commissioner was wrong in holding that a Second appeal is not maintainable. According to the learned Counsel, the respondents had urged before the Commissioner that the appeal before the Sub-Divisional Collector against order dated 18.3.1991 were not maintainable as an appeal should not have been entertained against an interlocutory order even when the appeal was filed before the Collector by the respondents themselves. The learned Commissioner, has erred in not appreciating that the Collector had modified the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade by importing the order of Tehsildar Barsar passed an a correction application and therefore a second appeal was maintainable. 5. Shri Pawan Kapraite, learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the respondents, after coming to know of wrong entries in the revenue records, chose to raise objection regarding the same during partition proceedings which were ignored by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 18.3.1991. The respondents chose to stop the partition proceedings and thereafter it was the petitioner who filed an application for partition before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Barsar. In the main while, the entries in the revenue record were ordered to be corrected by the Tehsildar Barsar vide order dated 24.2.1992. The petitioner has not sought to challenge this order before any competent Court of law and hence the entries were corrected vide Rapat No. 247 dated 13th March, 1992. In the main while, the entries in the revenue record were ordered to be corrected by the Tehsildar Barsar vide order dated 24.2.1992. The petitioner has not sought to challenge this order before any competent Court of law and hence the entries were corrected vide Rapat No. 247 dated 13th March, 1992. According to the learned Counsel, on this account alone, the present revision petition is not maintainable. The learned Counsel contended that the partition has to be carried out in accordance with the corrected entries. The learned Counsel further contended that the petitioner was taking advantage of the wrong entries in the record of rights and the respondents had no option but to file an application for correction of the revenue entries which were ordered to be corrected by the Tehsildar-Cum-Assistant Collector 1st Grade who was a competent authority to do so. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner has become owner in the land in dispute by virtue of conferment of proprietary right while-he was the tenant of only one of the co-sharers and was inducted as such over a particular portion of land but he was wrongly conferred proprietary rights on behalf of all the co-owners. The learned Collector has rightly ordered the Assistant Collector 1st Grade to partition the land in view of the orders of correction passed on 24.2.1992 which have saved the parties from getting involved in multiplicity of litigations. 6. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties, 1 has arrived at the following conclusion. 7. Both the parties intend to get the land in dispute partitioned but the controversy lies in the conflicting claims regarding their respective shares in the said land. While the petitioner claims to be a co-sharer with the respondents, the respondents claims that the petitioner who became a co-owner by virtue of conferment of proprietary rights, was included as a tenant by a particular co-owner over a specific portion regarding which necessary correction have been made in the record and hence the application for partition has to be processed accordingly. It is pertinent that the petitioner has not assailed the order of correction passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Barsar on 24.2.1992 whereby it has been held that the present petitioner assumed ownership only under one co-sharer, namely Shri Shamsher Singh. It is pertinent that the petitioner has not assailed the order of correction passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Barsar on 24.2.1992 whereby it has been held that the present petitioner assumed ownership only under one co-sharer, namely Shri Shamsher Singh. The legality of this order has not been challenged by the petitioner before any competent authority. Even if it is assumed that the proceedings for correction were stayed by the District Collector when an application for transferring the) matter to some other revenue Officer was filed before him, even then the order dated 24.2.1992 was to be assailed before a competent Court which has not been done. Under these circumstances, there is no alternative with the Assistant Collector 1st Grade but to proceed with the application for partition in accordance with the entries now existing in the record of rights. Though it has been rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a second appeal before the learned Commissioner was maintainable the finding of both the Courts below to the extent that the partition has to be carried out in accordance with the orders for correction dated 24.2.1992 are legally sound. Hence the order of the Collector dated and that of the Commissioner, Mandi Division dated 23.1.1999 are upheld this extent. As the existing revenue entries have not been assailed, I find no tenable reason to interfere in revision. The revision petition is dismissed. Announced in the open Court today the 16th September, 2005. The record of the Courts is returned. This case file be consigned to the record room after due completion. Revision petition is dismissed. -