ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed against orders dated 9.4.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are that an application for partition was filed by erstwhile companies namely Swasta Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Manak Estates Pvt. Ltd. on 16.11.1992 in the court of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Gurgaon fxor separating their shares. Instrument of Partition was prepared on 15.6.1993 whereafter the order of partition was given effect to on the spot by separating finally shares of the parties. For quite a long time nobody challenged the order of partition and after nine years, after death of Ghanshyam his son filed revision in the court of District Collector, Gurgaon on 14.1.2003 that he came to know about the exparte order of partition and his father never participated in the partition proceedings and the presence of his father in the zimni orders has been shown wrongly. The Collector Gurgaon dismissed the revision vide order dated 29.1.2004. Thereafter respondent no.1 filed revision before the learned Commissioner, Gurgaon Division who set aside orders of the Collector vide his orders dated 9.4.2007. 3. That the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that impugned orders dated 09.4.2007 passed by the learned Commissioner, Gurgaon Division are totally against the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act because he had no jurisdiction to set-aside the impugned orders because before doing so he was obliged to report the case with his opinion for the orders of the learned Financial Commissioner. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that orders dated 9.4.2007 do not suffer from any infirmity and the revision petition deserves dismissal. As soon as the respondent no. 1 came to know about the said partition in December, 2002 for the first time, he immediately filed a revision before the Collector against order of partition. Moreover, presence of Ghanshym has been shown fraudulently on 2.12.1992 and 15.12.1992. 5. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I am of the view that partition in this case was completed in 1995 and there are a large number of shareholders. The petitioner has only 2 Bigha share in the entire land. The possession had been delivered in pursuance of the partition and the son of the co-sharer filed this petition two years after his father’s death. The petitioner has only 2 Bigha share in the entire land. The possession had been delivered in pursuance of the partition and the son of the co-sharer filed this petition two years after his father’s death. License has already been granted for construction on this land. There is no sufficient reason/circumstances to condone the delay which in this case has not even been applied for. It is not credible that the respondent had no knowledge about the partition for so many years. Since partition had been completed, now the revenue court has no jurisdiction to re-open the case and the remedy lies with the Civil Court. The objections relating to joint khewats and lack of proper service cannot be made the basis for re-opening the partition proceedings after such a long gap. Under these circumstances, the orders dated 9.4.2007 passed by Commissioner, Gurgaon Division are set aside and the appeal is accepted. Announced. ------------------