ORDER P. Mitra., IAS - These two revision petitions came up for re-hearing on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. passed in CWP no. 2067/2007 and 2071/2007 dated 19.6.2009 whereby the orders passed by this court in revision petitions no. 271/97 and 272/97 dated 10.10.2006 and subsequent orders passed in review petitions no. 17/ 2006 and 18/2006 dated 28.8.2007 have been quashed and set aside with further direction to hear the revision petitions no. 271/97 and 272/97 afresh. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the predecessor in interest of Smt. Kamla Devi etc. Sh. Lal Chand filed an application before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Tehsil Hamirpur for partitioning joint land holdings comprised in khata/khatauni no. 5/6 khasra no. 5, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 74, 164,167,178 and 180 kita 11 measuring 92-16 kanals situated in Tikka Dhaneta, Mauza Hathol, Tehsil and Distt. Hamirpur. After hearing the parties, the Assistant Collector framed the mode of partition on 18.12.1991 and the final parti tion of the said land was ordered on 30.9.1993. The petitioners Sh. Soh an Lal and Lal Chand (Now deceased) filed appeals against the order of Assistant Collector before the Settlement Collector, Hamirpur who. dismissed both the appeals on 18.6.1994 and upheld the orders passed by the Assistant Collector ,dated 30.9.1993. Feeling aggrieved by the orders of the Settlement Collector, Sh. Sohan Lal and Lal Chand filed separate revision petitions before the Commissioner, Mandi division who vide order dated 20.5.1997 recommended the matters to this court with his observations that the orders passed by the courts below need to be quashed and the Assistant Collector may be directed to conducted the partition proceeding afresh. He had found that the land abutting the road was not allotted to other co-shares except to one Sh. Devi Chand which was against the principles to be followed at the time of partition. My predecessor, after hearing both the parties and vide orders dated 10.10.2006 did not accept the recommendations of the Commissioner and, upheld the , orders passed dated, 33.~.}993 passed by the Assistant Collector sanctioning the final partition. My predecessor also held that the order of the Settlement Collector dated 26.7.1994 (which should be 18.6.1994) was a very detailed order form which it emerged that some other lands belonging to the parties had also been the subject of partition and in those khatas, Sh. My predecessor also held that the order of the Settlement Collector dated 26.7.1994 (which should be 18.6.1994) was a very detailed order form which it emerged that some other lands belonging to the parties had also been the subject of partition and in those khatas, Sh. Sohan Lal and Sh. Lal Chand had got valuable roadside land. Since valuable area had already been with them, these persons were not given the road side area, when this khata was partitioned. Two separate review petitions against this order of my predecessor were dismissed on 28.8.2007 being not maintainable under section 16(4) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. The present petitioners, Smt. Kamla Devi and her son and Sh. Sohan Lal then challenged these orders through CWPs No. 2067/2007 and 2071/2007 before the Hon'ble High Court of H.P. which has remanded the cases back to this court for hearing afrest. 3. Learned counsels for both the parties were heard. Learned counsel for Smt. Kamla Devi and Sh. Devinder Singh (LRs of deceased petitioner Sh. Lal Chand) argued that the partition was not as per the mode of partition framed by the Assistant Collector on 18.12.1991. Appeals filed before the Collector Settlement were also dismissed. The Commissioner, Mandi division before whom revision petitions were filed recommended the matters to this court holding that the main dispute is in respect of khasra Nos. 164 and 167. Total length of roadside is 120 mtrs. He further argued that the petitioners have been given only 11 meters while others have got more than 109 meters. He further argued that the ,plea of the respondent that family partition had been done in 1979 when very valuable land was given to petitioners is without any substance since the respondents have not produced any record of this family partition. He lastly requested that the roadside land be divided equally and partition, should be done as per mode of partition. 4. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents Smt. Kanta Devi etc. (LRs. of Sh. Devi Chand) argued that the Collector's order states that the land is very valuable khasra no. 183 which is on the roadside was agreed to be given to petitioners, therefore khasra no. 167 was given to the respondents. He further argued that this was a consented mode of partition. The learned counsel gave a copy of tatima showing different plots given to the various parties. 183 which is on the roadside was agreed to be given to petitioners, therefore khasra no. 167 was given to the respondents. He further argued that this was a consented mode of partition. The learned counsel gave a copy of tatima showing different plots given to the various parties. He cited the case Lala Ram vs. Finaf1czal Commissioner, Haryana & Ors [AIR 1992 Pb. & Hry. Page 63} wherein it has been held that the order of preparation of instrument of partition is not appealable. 5. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioners Smt. Kamla Devi & Anr. denied that there was any consent to give valuable land to the respondent. He also argued that valuable land has to be given equally to all co-shares. 6. The learned counsel for another petitioner Sh. Sohan Lal endorsed the arguments adduced by the learned counsel for Smt. Kamla Devi and Sh. Devinder Singh. 7. I have considered the arguments by the learned counsels for both the parties and have perused the record of this court, the records of the lower courts and the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Court dated 19.6.2009. The bone of contention between the present petitioner Sh. Sohan Singh and LRs of other petitioner (Sh. Lal Chand) is that they have not been allotted land abutting the road whereas the contention of the LRs of respondent No. 1 (Sh. Devi Chand) is that the petitioners had already been allotted land abutting the road side in the year 1979 during a family partition between the parties in respect of other khatas. The objections of the petitioners qua the above were rejected by the Assistant Collector as baseless on 30.9.1993 with the observation that partition has been done as per possession of the parties and in accordance with the mode of partition and that there was no mention about the land abutting the road side in the mode of . partition and therefore he confirmed the partition done on the spot. 8. This decision of the Assistant Collector is questionable. partition and therefore he confirmed the partition done on the spot. 8. This decision of the Assistant Collector is questionable. Para 14.14 of the H.P. Land Records Manual lays down as under :- ".......Some lands may be more valuable than the rest on account of its natural quality or its situation, or the existence of means of irrigation.......It will, as a rule, be quite impracticable to give every man his exact share of every sort of land, and the investigating officers should set forth clearly how far deviation from the rule of equal proportions is to be allowed, and how men receiving inferior land are to be compensated by an increase in the area allotted to them or otherwise........" Now road side land is indisputably more valuable than others and should have found mention in the mode of partition. Some may take the position that it is for the parties to bring the differences in value of different portions of the land to the notice of the Assistant Collector when the mode of partition is devised. However, the directions in the Lands Records Manual makes it incumbent upon the Assistant Collector to ascertain the position even if the parties before him do not bring this to his notice while devising the mode of partition. In these circumstances, the proceedings conduct by the Assistant Collector is flawed. 9. The Collector Settlement in his order dated 18.6.1994 has held that the partition proceedings have been carried out correctly but at the same time he says that there should have been detailed mention of the land abutting the road side in the mode of partition. The Collector Settlement thus recognized the error on the part of the Assistant Collector-but did nothing about it. The Collector Settlement had further stated that it cannot be denied that the petitioners have inherited land abutting the roadside though it may be in another khata. However, the Settlement Collector does not give any supporting details in respect of this finding of his. Further this findings of his is not supported by any thing in his case file or for that matter in any other record. Not only this, this court had given sufficient opportunity to the learned counsel for respondents to bring forth record regarding the purported earlier (family) partition but nothing has been brought forth. Further this findings of his is not supported by any thing in his case file or for that matter in any other record. Not only this, this court had given sufficient opportunity to the learned counsel for respondents to bring forth record regarding the purported earlier (family) partition but nothing has been brought forth. In fact repeated adjournments had been given for this but with no results. Therefore the contention that the petitioners had got--(madside) land in an earlier partition cannot be relied upon/accepted. 10. In view of the above, -the recommendations of the Commissioner, Mandi division dated 20.5.1997 made in case No. 62/94 and 64/94 are accepted and the orders passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nadaun Tehsil and by the Collector Settlement are set aside. The case remanded to the Assistant Collector, Nadaun to conduct the partition proceedings afresh keeping in view the observations made by the Commissioner, Mandi division and decide the matter expeditiously. 11. Announced in open court today the 22nd June, 2010. Records of the lower courts be returned and case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion. M.R.B.