ORDER 1. This revision petition u/s 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 has been filed against the order dated 15-1-14 passed by Commissioner, Faridkot Division, FaridKot and order dated 14-2-11 passed by Collector, Faridkot and order dated 30-10-09 passed by Assistant Collector, Grade-I, Faridkot in the matter of partition of land. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in partition case titled ‘Mahinga Singh v. Gurbachan Singh’, the Assistant Collector Grade-I after proceeding in the case passed Naksha Zeem vide his order dated 30-10-09, which was challenged before Collector by the petitioner mainly on the ground that his objections to the Naksha Zeem have not been considered and the same has bekn wrongly passed. The Collector, however, after hearing both the parties dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 14-2-11 with the observation that the Naksha Zeem has been prepared as per the mode of partition. Still aggrieved, the petitioner filed further revision before Commissioner, who vide order dated 15-1-14 dismissed the same by holding that Naksha Zeem has been sanctioned after Considering the objections of the petitioners and the same was also sanctioned on the basis of Naksha Bey, against which the petitioner did not file any appeal or revision. Hence the present revision before this court. 3. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that Assistant Collector Grade-I’s order mentions that petitioners had orally consented to Naqsha Jeem, however, this is incorrect. Secondly, the observation in the impugned order that petitioners had objected to Naqsha Bey, cannot take away his statutory right to object to Naqsha Zeem, which is a subsequent and distinct stage of partition proceedings. The petitioner’s share has been decreased at the state of Naqsha Zeem despite the orders and decree of civil court dated 1-6-95 and the sale deed registered on 22-12-2009 having been placed on record. Thirdly, the Assistant Collector Grade-I’s order is non speaking; it gives no reasons for reducing petitioner’s share and this has been ignored1 by the impugned order of the Commissioner. 4. I have perused the record of the case. The Assistant Collector Grade-I’s order dated 30-9-2010 sanctioning Naqsha Zeem and ordering present petitioners to deposit fees for Sanad Taqseem record the presence and consent of their counsel. In appeal before Collector petitioner had claimed that the proceedings before Assistant Collector Grade-I were exparte, that they learnt of the order only when warrants of possession was issued. The Assistant Collector Grade-I’s order dated 30-9-2010 sanctioning Naqsha Zeem and ordering present petitioners to deposit fees for Sanad Taqseem record the presence and consent of their counsel. In appeal before Collector petitioner had claimed that the proceedings before Assistant Collector Grade-I were exparte, that they learnt of the order only when warrants of possession was issued. This is a serious matter. The petitioners had initiated partition. Their counsel is recorded as present in Assistant Collector Grade-I’s order dated 30-9-2010. If this record is not to be believed then the onus is on petitioners to challenge it by adducing evidence, however, they have failed entirely to do so. As regards their objections to Naqsha Zeem they have failed to bring on record their specific objections or the inaccuracy as regards shares that they claim. They have mentioned a civii court decree dated 1-6-1995 which is a consent decree passing the share of their grandmother to them (as minors). Presumably it has been recorded in the jamabandi. They also mention a sale deed registered on 22-12-2009, which is after the date_of Assistant Collector Grade-I’s order which was passed on 30-10-2009. This sale deed appears to transfer shares of the petitioners’, father’s, sister’s children to them. Hence, they would step into the shoes of these sellers. However, it could have no impact whatsoever on Naqsha Zeem already sanctioned. Accordingly, I find that the Commissioner’s order impugned correctly comes to the finding that:- “It stands amply proved that Naqsha Zeem in the instant case has been sanctioned after considering the objections of the petitioners and the same was also sanctioned on the basis of Naqsha Bey, against which the petitioners did not file any appeal or revision.” 5. Further, I find that petitioners have made unsubstantiated statements against the facts on file, as noted above. Such conduct is deprecable, it shows that this petition is frivolous, if not vexatious. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Announced. ————————