JUDGMENT P.S. Rana 1. Present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 1141 of 2006 decided on 22.4.2010 titled Simarata Devi and another vs. Financial Commissioner Revenue and others. Brief facts of the case 2. Shri Suchinder and others had filed application for partition of immovable land under Section 123 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1953 relating to immovable land comprised in Khata No. 46, Khatauni No. 118 to 122, Khasra Nos. 420, 427, 867, 935, 936, 937, 877, 883, 888, 889, 895, 896, 934, 876, 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 887, 894, 940, 419 measuring 3-47- 57 Hect. situated in village Daroh Tehsil Palampur District Kangra (H.P.) as per jamabandi for the year 1994-95. On 12.12.2001 Assistant Collector 2nd Grade framed mode of partition and thereafter file was sent to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade for further proceedings. On 22.02.2002 the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Palampur affirmed the mode of partition passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. Thereafter on 2.6.2003 Suchinder and others had filed petition before the Assistant Collector pleading therein that front portion of Khasra Nos. 888 and 889 measuring 0-21-88 Hect. is touching road side 69 metres in length and all co-sharers have equal rights relating to road side land as per their shares. In petition it is pleaded that value of immovable land comprised in Khasra Nos. 888 and 889 is fifty times more as compared to other immovable land. It is pleaded that although it was mentioned in mode of partition that Khasra Nos. 888 and 889 would be partitioned but executing reference relating to mode of partition sent to field agency did not mention about partition of Khasra Nos. 888 and 889. It is pleaded that in case Khasra Nos. 888 and 889 are not partitioned then applicants would suffer irreparable loss. On 20.6.2003 the Assistant Collector 1st Grade passed the order that executing reference sent to field agency was not sent in consonance with original order of mode of partition dated 12.12.2001. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 20.6.2003 directed that amended executing reference to field agency be sent strictly in accordance with the original order of mode of partition dated 12.12.2001. 3. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 20.6.2003 directed that amended executing reference to field agency be sent strictly in accordance with the original order of mode of partition dated 12.12.2001. 3. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 20.6.2003 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Smt. Simrata Devi and others filed appeal before the Collector Sub Division Palampur and the Collector Sub Division Palampur dismissed the appeal with the observations that original order of mode of partition dated 12.12.2001 was passed by the Assistant Collector in presence of Samrita Devi. The Collector Palampur further held that in original order of mode of partition dated 12.12.2001 at Sr. No. 5 it was ordered that Khasra Nos. 888 and 889 would be partitioned inter se the parties as per their shares. The Collector further held that order dated 20.6.2003 was not passed in violation of original order of mode of partition but passed only to correct the clerical errors in executory order. The Collector held that order was only executory in nature without modification of original order of mode of partition. The Collector further held that there was no need to obtain prior sanction of the Collector as impugned order was not review of original order of mode of partition dated 12.12.2001. 4. Thereafter, feeling aggrieved against the order of the Collector Smt. Samrita Devi and others had filed revision petition No. 73 of 2004 titled Simrata Devi and another vs. Suchinder Dutt and others under Section 17 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). The Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision petition on 17.5.2006 and upheld the order passed by Collector. 5. Thereafter, feeling aggrieved against order of the Financial Commissioner Simrata Devi and others had filedCWP No. 1141 of 2006 titled Simrata Devi and another vs. Financial Commissioner Revenue (Appeal) and others before this Court. This Court vide order dated 22.4.2010 dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter Simrata Devi and others filed present Letters Patent Appeal. 6. We have heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and the respondents and we have also perused the entire record carefully. 7. This Court vide order dated 22.4.2010 dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter Simrata Devi and others filed present Letters Patent Appeal. 6. We have heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and the respondents and we have also perused the entire record carefully. 7. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has questioned the judgment of learned Single Judge on the following grounds:- (1) That the learned Single Judge has failed to apply his mind to relevant provision of Section 16 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954, which deals with review of order. (2) That the record was tampered with by revenue authority. (3) That the mode of partition was sanctioned on 12.12.2001 and petition was filed on 2.6.2003 beyond period of limitation. (4) That the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition has not considered the question of title. (5) That private partition was made inter se the parties. 8. The submissions of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, being devoid of any force, are rejected for the reasons mentioned hereinafter:- 9. It is true that procedure to review the order passed by revenue officer is prescribed under Section 16 of the Act. 10. We have carefully perused the entire record of revenue Courts. On 12.12.2001 Assistant Collector 2nd Grade prepared following mode of partition in presence of the appellants:- “(1) That total land measuring 3-47-57 Hect. would be partitioned. (2) That partition would be effected keeping in view the possession of parties over immovable land. (3) That khata of Suchinder, Varinder, Simro, Kushma and Pushpa would be kept joint. (4) That khata of Simrata and Bhupinder would be kept joint. (5) That khata of Rakesh Kumar and Mahesh Kumar would be kept joint. (6) That cattle shed, path, water pond would be kept into consideration. (7) That Khasra Nos. 888 and 889 measuring 0-13-35 Hect., which is touching road side would be allotted to parties according to their shares. (8) That trees would be allotted as per share over the allotted immovable land. (9) That partition would be conducted as per classification of land and deficiency of 0-00- 19 Hect. would not be considered. (10) That Halqua Patwari would conduct the partition proceedings directly under the supervision of Field Kanungo. (11) That provision of Consolidation Act would be kept in mind in partiition proceedings. (9) That partition would be conducted as per classification of land and deficiency of 0-00- 19 Hect. would not be considered. (10) That Halqua Patwari would conduct the partition proceedings directly under the supervision of Field Kanungo. (11) That provision of Consolidation Act would be kept in mind in partiition proceedings. (12) That entire expenses of partition proceedings would be paid by applicants and thereafter subsequently would be distributed among co-sharers.” 11. Mode of partition quoted supra was prepared by revenue officer as per Section 130 of the Act in presence of the appellants namely Simrata Devi and Upender Dutt. No question of title was raised by the appellants before the revenue officer when he had prepared mode of partition. Even the appellants did not file any appeal against original mode of partition prepared by the revenue officer as required under Section 130 (2) of the Act. It is held that mode of partition prepared on 12.12.2001 by the revenue officer has attained the stage of finality. It is true that subsequently Suchinder and others filed application before the revenue officer on 2.6.2003 placed on record. We have perused the entire contents of application carefully. There is recital in application that Khasra Nos. 888 and 889 is situated adjoining the road side 69 metres in length and all co-sharers have equal interest in Khasra Nos. 888 and 889. There is recital in application that value of Khasra Nos. 888 and 889 is fifty times more as compared to other land. There is further recital in application that revenue field agency despite mentioning of partition of Khasra Nos. 888 and 889 in original mode of partition is not allotting Khasra Nos. 888 and 889 to the parties as per their shares in partition proceedings. Relief sought in application was that Khasra Nos. 888 and 889 be allotted in partition proceedings amongst the co-sharers as per original mode of partition dated 12.12.2001. 12. It is well settled law that while coming to conclusion entire contents of application and relief clause should be read as whole and isolated word should not be used. After perusal of entire contents of application carefully we are of the opinion that Suchinder and others have not sought review of original order of mode of partition dated 12.12.2001 but have sought only alteration of executory order sent to field agency for compliance. After perusal of entire contents of application carefully we are of the opinion that Suchinder and others have not sought review of original order of mode of partition dated 12.12.2001 but have sought only alteration of executory order sent to field agency for compliance. We have also perused the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade dated 20.6.2003 carefully. There is recital in the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade dated 20.6.2003 that original order of mode of partition was prepared on 12.12.2001. There is further recital in order dated 20.6.2003 that in executory order of mode of partition sent to Field Kanungo it was not mentioned that Khasra Nos. 888 and 889 measuring 0-13-35 Hect. would be partitioned inter se co-sharers as per their shares in partition proceedings. 13. We are of the opinion that order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade dated 20.6.2003 is simply modification of executory order. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade did not review its original order of mode of partition dated 12.12.2001 but only modified the executory order which was sent to Field Kanungo for execution. It is well settled law that executory order means consequential order passed only to implement the earlier original order. It is well settled law that executory order is only a step in execution of earlier original order. (See AIR 1992 P&H 62 titled Lala Ram vs. Financial Commissioner Haryana & others) In view of above stated facts it is held that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade didnot modify the original order of mode of partition dated 12.12.2001 but only modified the executory order sent to Field Kanungo. It is held that sanction of revenue officer to whom Assistant Collector was immediately subordinate was not required in the present case as mentioned under Section 16 of the Act for modification of simply executory order sent to field agency for execution. 14. We have carefully perused Annexures P-10 and P14 placed on record. Contents of Annexures P-10 and P-14 are similar in nature and contents of Annexures P-10 and P-14 are not dis-similar in nature. We are agree with the observations of learned Single Judge of this Court that there is no evidence on record to substantiate these allegations. 15. We have minutely gone through the application filed on 2.6.2003. The application was simply for modification of executory order sent to Field Kanungo relating to mode of partition. We are agree with the observations of learned Single Judge of this Court that there is no evidence on record to substantiate these allegations. 15. We have minutely gone through the application filed on 2.6.2003. The application was simply for modification of executory order sent to Field Kanungo relating to mode of partition. Original mode of partition was prepared on 12.12.2001 and there is positive recital in Sr. No. 5 of mode of partition dated 12.12.2001 that Khasra Nos. 888 and 889 would be allotted to parties strictly as per their shares in partition proceedings. It is held that no review of original order of mode of partition dated 12.12.2001 was sought but only review of executory order sent to Field Kanungo was sought. It is held that there is no limitation for altering the executory order sent to field agency for compliance as per H.P. Land Revenue Act relating to pending partition proceedings. It is held that limitation will apply only when revenue officer will modify its original order in partition proceedings. There is wide difference between modification of original order in parititon proceedings and modification of executory orders sent to field agency for compliance in partition proceedings. It is held that there are two different concepts:- (1) Modification of original orders in partition proceedings. (2) Modification of executory orders sent to field agency in compliance to original order of partition proceedings. 16. It is held that when revenue officer modify executory order only and sent to field agency for compliance then prior sanction of superior revenue officer as mentioned under Section 16 of the Act is not required. It is held that when revenue officer modify original orders in partition proceedings then prior sanction of superior officer as mentioned under Section 16 of the Act is required. Point of limitation is decided against appellants. 17. In the present case appellants did not raise question of title before revenue officer in partition proceedings as required under Section 129 of the Act when mode of partition was prepared by revenue officer on 12.12.2001. 18. Appellants did not place on record any documents of private partition signed by parties. Even no instrument of private partition is placed on record in the present case. No rapat of private partition is placed on record and even private partition is not affirmed by revenue officer as required under Section 135 of the Act. 18. Appellants did not place on record any documents of private partition signed by parties. Even no instrument of private partition is placed on record in the present case. No rapat of private partition is placed on record and even private partition is not affirmed by revenue officer as required under Section 135 of the Act. Even no instrument of private partition is placed on record in the present case. It was held in case reported in 1996(1) S.L.J. 696 titled Chander Bhan vs. Hari Ram and others that if family partition is not sanctioned by revenue officer then same would not be considered as final partition. (See 1994(1) S.L.J. 433 titled Darbara Singh and another vs. Gurdial Singh and another. Also see AIR 1983 H.P. page 28 titled Khem Dutt and another vs. Palkia and another) 19. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Order of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in CWP No. 1141 of 2006 titled Simrata Devi vs. Financial Commissioner Revenue (Appeal) dated 22.4.2010 is affirmed. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.