ORDER : Narinder Chauhan, Financial Commissioner This revision petition has come up for rehearing based on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 372/2008-B, order dated 14.6.2012, case titled Om Prakash v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. The Hon'ble High Court, while remanding the case to this Court, mandated that its earlier remand order dated 9.7.2007 in CWP No. 962 of 2001, be taken into consideration and that each and every submission made on behalf of the parties be taken cognizance of, and speaking orders be passed as to why the Divisional Commissioner's recommendation made in revision petition No. 126 of 1996, Om Prakash v. Lajya Devi, are acceptable or not acceptable. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Smt. Lajya, had applied before the A.C. 1st Grade, Amb district Una, for partition of the suit land on 4.10.1973, under Section 111 of Punjab Land Revenue Act. Originally Sh. Ram Pal, who was father of petitioner Om Prakash, held share and another share was that of Krishan Gopal, predecessor of the respondent, who are legal heirs of late Krishan Gopal. Sh Krishan Gopal, died prior to 1970, leaving behind Smt. Lajya Devi as his widow, and Ravinder Kumar and Surinder Kumar as minor sons. The land was jointly held by the parties comprised in khasra No. 1, khatauni No. 1 to 11, kitag 97, measuring 507 kanals 4 Marlas, entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1970-71, situated in Village Baheri, Tehsil Amb. The AC 1st grade, sanctioned the mode of partition on 19.10.1974 and on 5.7.1975 ordered to prepare the instrument of partition. Against the order dated 5.7.1975, the present petitioner Sh. Om Parkash, filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Collector, Una, which appeal was dismissed in default on 30.6.1978, due to non-appearance of any of the parties in the Court on the date of hearing. The present petitioner later filed an application for restoration of the said appeal which was also dismissed in default on 31.7.1980. This order was further challenged by the present petitioner before the Ld. Divisional Commissioner by filing a revision petition which petition the Ld. The present petitioner later filed an application for restoration of the said appeal which was also dismissed in default on 31.7.1980. This order was further challenged by the present petitioner before the Ld. Divisional Commissioner by filing a revision petition which petition the Ld. Commissioner recommended to the FC, vide his order dated 26.9.1982, in case No. 40 of 1980, and the FC, vide order dated 22.10.1981, in revenue revision No. 118/82, set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the case back for a fresh decision. 3. Accordingly, the Ld. Sub Divisional Collector, Amb vide his order dated 3.9.1985, in case, 156/83, held that the partition was in accordance with item No. 3 of the mode of partition prepared on 9.10.1974, but nevertheless held that a violation of clause 10 of the mode of partition had taken place and remanded the case back to the AC 1st Grade for a fresh decision. 4. On a revised mode of partition being prepared by the A.C. 1st Grade, the present respondent challenged the mode of partition in the Court of Settlement Collector, Kangra, as the area came under settlement operations, on the ground that mode of partition prepared in 1974, against which no appeal was made by the petitioner cannot be reopened or ignored at such a belated stage. Settlement Collector, vide order dated 6.11.1987, in appeal No. 61/87/50, held that remanding of the case back by the Sub Divisional Collector vide his order dated 3.9.1985, for a fresh decision, would ipso facto cover preparation of a mode of partition afresh by the AC 1st Grade. 5. The AC 1st Grade, thereafter framed a fresh mode of partition on 1.8.1988 and confirmed it on 21.2.1990. The instrument of partition was prepared on 19.4.1990. The instrument stipulated that partition was to take place from rabi crop-1990. This order was also challenged by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Collector, Amb, on the grounds that there was a departure from the mode of partition and that the petitioner has not been given equal share in all categories of land. The Sub Divisional Collector in case No. 18/rev/90 vide order dated 27.9.1990, dismissed the appeal being devoid of merit. However, Ld. Collector pointed out certain lapses like missing order sheets and unsigned order sheets and directed that an inquiry be held separately on this issue by the AC 1st grade. 6. The Sub Divisional Collector in case No. 18/rev/90 vide order dated 27.9.1990, dismissed the appeal being devoid of merit. However, Ld. Collector pointed out certain lapses like missing order sheets and unsigned order sheets and directed that an inquiry be held separately on this issue by the AC 1st grade. 6. The petitioner on filing a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra. The Id. Commissioner in revision No. 126/90, vide his order dated 31.7.1991, recommended the case in favour of the petitioner to the FC Appeals, on the ground that allotment of land has not been done equitably, and that actual possession as per settlement position should have been taken as the basis for partition, and the reasons adduced for not wanting to consider pre settlement possession as the basis for the partition are not very convincing. Further, that the procedural irregularities mentioned by the collector vitiated the entire process and that the possibility of settlement errors of recording wrongful possession during settlement proceedings carrying over to these proceedings and adversely affecting the petitioner's interest cannot be ruled out. The revision was accepted by Ld. Divisional Commissioner, and a recommendation in favour of petitioner made to the Financial Commissioner. 7. F.C. (Appeal) in revision No. 105/91, vide order dated 28.9.2000, did not accept the recommendation of the Divisional Commissioner and consequently rejected the same. The reasons given by Ld. F.C. are that no illegality or irregularity has been pointed out by the Commissioner, and to suggest that pre settlement record should be made the basis to partition land is an irrelevant suggestion, particularly when land is owned jointly and possession recorded of all owners. It was further held that the proposal of Divisional Commissioner seeks to open a new point relating to a settlement dispute, in partition proceedings. That partition based on any other record other than the act record in force would be a nullity, as possession would be recorded as per the latest settlement proceedings, and the latest record actually depicts the latest classification of land. Ld. That partition based on any other record other than the act record in force would be a nullity, as possession would be recorded as per the latest settlement proceedings, and the latest record actually depicts the latest classification of land. Ld. F.C. Appeals further held that the inference of the Divisional Commissioner that settlement records may not have correctly depicted possession and were not proper for partition is without substance and needs to be turned down, and the argument of the petitioner that the settlement staff may not have correctly recorded the possession of the petitioner, cannot be a camouflage for a challenge to the partition proceedings, and wrong recording of possession ought to be agitated before the Settlement Collector. Moreover, the entire comments of Ld. Divisional Commissioner envisaged a hypothetical reasoning and were not based on record. It was further held that in the absence of any challenge having been laid against the mode of partition, on this score also the revision fails and the recommendations were not accepted and revision was rejected. 8. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 962 of 2001, the Hon'ble Court remanded the case back to the F.C. (Appeals) with certain observations. On reconsideration of the case, the F.C. (Appeals) in case no 203/07 (105/91) vide his order dated 26.2.2008, upheld the orders of AC 1st Grade, confirming the mode of partition dated 21.2.1990, and the instrument of partition drawn on 19.4.1990. The Petitioner again approached the Hon'ble High Court in a writ CWP No. 372 of 2008-B, the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 14.6.2012, again remanded the case back to this Court. 9. The above narration of the litigation between the parties, clearly reveals the status with effect from 1973. During the arguments advocate for petitioner Sh. Hemant Negi, has challenged the quantum of area given to him, and more importantly that the basis of partition should have been the pre settlement record and the violation which has taken place in effecting partition vis-a-vis revised mode of partition dated 1.8.1988. Advocate for respondent Sh. During the arguments advocate for petitioner Sh. Hemant Negi, has challenged the quantum of area given to him, and more importantly that the basis of partition should have been the pre settlement record and the violation which has taken place in effecting partition vis-a-vis revised mode of partition dated 1.8.1988. Advocate for respondent Sh. Vijay Vir, has argued that the orders of F.C. Appeal should be upheld as all aspects have been duly considered and the petitioner is needlessly harassing a widow of her entitlement to her half share, and that no illegality or irregularity have been committed while conducting partition proceedings, and case has been lingering on one pretext or another w.e.f. 1973. 10. On careful consideration of the arguments and perusal of the entire record and decisions, I am of the opinion that the litigation between the parties is frivolous and without a substantive base for challenging the partition. In fact, the orders of F.C. (Appeal) dated 28.9.2000 and 26.02.2008, are reasoned orders and go into every detail. Partition involving over 507 kanals of land cannot be done by weighing land in golden scales. The instrument of partition etc. have been drawn, it is important to mention that the entitlement of the parties to partition is not in dispute, both being co-sharers and no dispute regarding title exists. Ld. F.C. in his order dated 26.2.20 08, has correctly held that pre-settlement record cannot be made a basis for partition of land as argued and proposed by petitioner, as mode of partition was prepared on 21 2.1990, long after the 1975 settlement operations. That the revenue authorities can take into cognizance only the latest revenue record, which record correctly exhibits possession and classification of land. On the issue of unequal share received by the petitioner, the collector has calculated the nakshas 'alf, 'be', 'jeem' with missal haqiqat 1986-87, and concluded that equal shares has been allocated to all the parties with respect to each category of land, namely irrigated, barani abbal, bagicha, barani doyam and gairmajrua. Similarly, the order of F.C. dated 28.9.2000, at page nine of the order reveals allocation of land between the parties as follows: Cultivable area Uncultivable area. Petitioner 3-06-43 hect 8-08-07 hect Respondents 3-59-41 hect 8-08-31 hect Infact petitioner has been given slightly more land than the respondent. 11. Similarly, the order of F.C. dated 28.9.2000, at page nine of the order reveals allocation of land between the parties as follows: Cultivable area Uncultivable area. Petitioner 3-06-43 hect 8-08-07 hect Respondents 3-59-41 hect 8-08-31 hect Infact petitioner has been given slightly more land than the respondent. 11. The Hon'ble High Court, has in its orders highlighted the recommendation by the Divisional Commissioner, vide his order dated 31.7.1991, in favour of the petitioner and the procedural irregularities as pointed out by Sub Divisional Collector, Amb, in his order dated 27.9.1990, of missing order sheets and unsigned order sheet record for period 14.4.1987 to 21.2.1990. Though it is a sad reflection on the record keeping, nevertheless such a lacuna has no bearing on the case, and holding otherwise, would be incentivising such record keeping or mischief. Partition is done on the basis of jamabandis and mode of partition and other field record prepared during partition, which record has remained intact, and no prejudice has been caused to either party and proceedings cannot be said to be vitiated. It is to be remembered that the partition case is pending since 1973, and proceedings cannot be allowed to go on ad-infirm. Even otherwise, the reasons for non-acceptance of the recommendation of the Divisional Commissioner are well reasoned and inferences made by Divisional Commissioner of partitioning land on pre-settlement record, possibility of errors in settlement creeping into present partition etc. are without basis, and any grievance against settlement proceedings cannot be camouflaged in partition proceedings, Reasoning by Ld. Divisional Commissioner is based on hypothetical assumptions, without having any basis based on existing record. 12. I am inclined to agree with the orders of my predecessors and equally with the argument of the respondent that no challenge to the mode was made before the Sub Collector and improvements have been made to the land, as instrument of partition has been drawn on 19.4.1990. It is important to remember that proceedings are pending or under litigation since 1975, and the respondent being a widow with minor sons, when an application for partition was made, subjecting the parties to endless litigation would result in another delay of years together. Distribution of land has been fair and equitable, and considering the huge quantum of land to be divided between the parties i.e 507 kanals, such land cannot be measured in golden scales to the satisfaction of all. Distribution of land has been fair and equitable, and considering the huge quantum of land to be divided between the parties i.e 507 kanals, such land cannot be measured in golden scales to the satisfaction of all. Moreover, all the substantive procedures of conducting partition proceedings have been complied with. I am therefore, of the opinion that orders of Ld. F.C. (Appeal) dated 26.2.2008, are required to be upheld being well reasoned and all points as mentioned in the remand order by the Hon'ble High Court have been addressed. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.