JUDGMENT Rajive Bhalla, J. (Oral) C.M. No. 4833 of 2011 Prayer in this application is to condone the delay of 49 days in filing the appeal. Counsel for respondent No. 1 states that he has no objection, if the application is allowed and delay is condoned. In view of averments in the application and statement made by counsel for respondent No. 1, the application is allowed and delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The appellants challenge order dated 03.06.2011, dismissing their writ petition as well as orders passed by revenue authorities. Counsel for the appellants submits that parties affected an oral private partition, duly reflected in jamabandi for the year 196263 much before purchase of the land by the appellants and the private respondents. The revenue authorities, therefore, had no jurisdiction to partition the land, in dispute. It is further submitted that jamabandi for the year 196263 clearly records that Satpal son of Narain son of Muni Lal, vendor of the private respondents and Jagdish son of Nand Lal son of Gurmal, vendor of the appellants, are in separate possession of separate parcels of land, duly proved by allotment of separate khatouni numbers. It is further submitted that as parties purchased the share holding of Satpal and Jagdish and remained in separate possession of separate parcels of land, an inference arises that parties intended to partition the land. The orders recorded by revenue officers, rejecting the plea of private partition, as affirmed by learned Single Judge, are illegal and void. Counsel for private respondents, however, submits that jamabandi for the year 196263 does not record a partition, but a private arrangement between cosharers for the purpose of cultivation, duly reflected by assigning separate khatounis, instead of allotting separate khewats. It is further submitted that in case, private partition had been effected, revenue officers would have allotted a separate khewat to each cosharer. It is also pointed out that jambandi for the year 196263, relied upon by the appellant clearly refers to Satpal as owner of 1/3rd share and Jagdish as owner of 2/3rd share, thereby negating the plea of partition, raised by the appellants. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order as well as the orders passed by the revenue officers and find no reason to entertain the appeal. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order as well as the orders passed by the revenue officers and find no reason to entertain the appeal. The only argument advanced by the appellant is that as vendors of the parties, partitioned the land by a private partition, duly recorded in jamabandi for the year 196263, revenue officers had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for partition of the land. The argument, in our considered opinion, is factually and legally incorrect. A perusal of jamabandi for the year 196263 reveals that Satpal and Jagdish, vendors of private respondents and the appellants, respectively, are recorded as cosharers. Satpal is recorded as owner of 1/3rd share and Jagdish as owner of 2/3rd share. A perusal of column No. (1) of jamabandi for the year 196263 reveals that a single khewat has been allotted to the entire land. Though, it is true that separate khatounis have been allotted to cosharers but allotment of a separate khatouni, merely indicates a private arrangement and not a private partition or an intention to partition land. A separate khatouni is recorded amongst cosharers to demarcate parcels of land for the purpose of better cultivation. A partition, is recorded, by allotting separate khewats, thereby indicating severance of the joint status of parties. A perusal of the jamabandi reveals that a single khewat and two separate khatounis were allotted to the parties' vendors, thereby clearly raising an inference that parties intended to facilitate separate cultivation, referred to in revenue terms as “hissedari kasht” without severance of the joint status. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.