ORDER : 1. The revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner, Shri Roshan Lal (now deceased), against the order dated 22.4.1999, passed by the Ld. Commissioner, Kangra Division, in revision petition No. 244/96, vide which he has dismissed the four revision petitions filed before him, upholding the orders passed by the Collector. Sub-division, Una, dated 26.8.1996 in appeal nos. 54/Rev/93, 55/Rev/93, 56/Rev/93 and 57/Rev/93 and the A.C. Ist Grade, Amb, dated 22.7.1992 in case nos. 38/P/92, 39/P/92,40/P/92 and 41/P/92. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as gathered from the perusal of the record are that Shri Roshan Lal (now deceased) herein petitioner filed four separate applications on 7.7.1992, before the A.C. Ist Grade, Amb, for partition of joint land holding comprised in;-(i) khata/khatauni no. 111/236, khasra no. 2420/1, area measuring 0-00-20hect., (ii) Khata/khatauni no.15/245, 246, 247, khasra nos.kita-8, area measuring 0-08-95hect., (iii) khata/khatauni no.112/237, 238, khasra nos. kita-6, area measuring 0-28-79hect. & (iv) khata/khatauni no. 68/157, 158, khasra nos., kita-3, area measuring 0-04-75hect., situated in up mohal Maira, Mohal Bhanjal, Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una. After following the due process of law, the A.C. Ist, devised a mode of partition in each case on 30.12.1992. in the presence of both parties and directed the field agencies to partition the land on the spot accordingly. On receipt of partition papers from the field, the A.C. Ist Grade, again summoned both the parties. In between, on 16.2.1993, the applicant, Roshan Lal, filed an application to dismiss the partition applications as he did not intend to pursue the partition proceedings. But, on the same day, respondent Shri Amar Dass, filed four separate applications for impleading him as an applicant and desired continuation of the partition proceedings. The A.C. Ist, after hearing both the parties, on 16.6.1993, allowed the applications of both the parties and impleaded Shri Amar Dass as applicant and ordered to note the title of the suits as Amar Dass v. Roshan Lal. He further directed both the parties to file objections on the partition papers prepared by the revenue field agency except in one case bearing no. 40/P/92 (pertaining to khewat no. 68) in which partition papers were not received from the field agency, and fixed the cases for further hearing on 22.7.1993. On 22.7.1993, both the parties were present. He further directed both the parties to file objections on the partition papers prepared by the revenue field agency except in one case bearing no. 40/P/92 (pertaining to khewat no. 68) in which partition papers were not received from the field agency, and fixed the cases for further hearing on 22.7.1993. On 22.7.1993, both the parties were present. Shri Amar Dass, applicant gave his consent to the partition done by the field agencies by recording his statement but respondent, Shri Roshan Lal, orally objected to the partition, however, he failed to file any written objection and refused to give his statement to this effect. The A.C. Ist Grade, after going through the partition papers prepared by the field agencies and hearing the parties, confirmed the partition in three case nos. 38/P/92, 39/P/92 and 41/P/92, vide order dated 22.7.1993, and ordered to file the fourth case no. 40/P/92 pertaining to khewat no. 68, as both parties were not willing to partition that land. After expiry of the period of appeal, the A.C.1st Grade, prepared the instrument of partition on 21.9.1993, in the above three case. 3. Feeling aggrieved with the above order dated 22.7.1993, of the A.C. Ist Grade, Shri Roshan Lal, challenged the same before the Collector, Sub-Division, Amb, mainly on the ground that the partition has not been done according to the mode of partition. The Ld. Collector, after hearing the parties and perusal of the record found that no violation of mode of partition has been done while conducting the partition by the field staff. The appellant has also been allotted land in each khewat no. to the extent of his share as per the quality of the land. Therefore, the Ld. Collector, found that the issues raised by the appellant in all appeals are vague and baseless and he accordingly dismissed all the appeals vide single order dated 28.8.1996, 4. Still not satisfied, Shri Roshan Lal, further went to, the Commissioner, Kangra Division and filed four separate revision petitions before him. The Ld. Commissioner, while referring sub-section 4 of section 130 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 and discussing the points raised by the petitioner in detail, especially with regard to partition of khasra no. 2448 and 2451 which fall in khata no. 112, and found no dispute about the three remaining khewats, dismissed all the revision petition Nos. The Ld. Commissioner, while referring sub-section 4 of section 130 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 and discussing the points raised by the petitioner in detail, especially with regard to partition of khasra no. 2448 and 2451 which fall in khata no. 112, and found no dispute about the three remaining khewats, dismissed all the revision petition Nos. 244, 245, 246, 247 of 1996, vide the impugned order dated 22.4.1999, by upholding the orders passed by both the courts below. Hence, this revision petition. 5. During the pendency of revision petition before this court petitioner and both respondents expired and therefore, their legal heirs have been brought on record as per misc. application no. 46.2012, 140/2008, 198/2011, 173/2012. 6. Ld. counsel for both the parties have filed written arguments, which have been taken into consideration. Ld. counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contents of the revision petition and submitted that once an application was withdrawn by the petitioner for partition, the proceedings cannot continue, and as such, same are illegal and invalid; that abadior built up property without possession of share holders cannot be partitioned, as partition of such property falls within the domain of civil court as envisaged under section 124(2)(c) of the H.P. Land revenue Act; that the revenue authorities have not looked into the mode of partition and has allotted merely 0-00-66 hect. of land out of khasra no. 2451 total area measuring 0-06-64 hect. whereas he was having ? share in it and the said khasra no. is situated on the road side and is most valuable and that the respondents have their abadi in part of khasra no. 2451. Similarly, khasra no. 2448 is measuring 0-01-19 hectares and he has been allotted only 0-00-09 hect wherein he also is having ?rd share in it. Lastly, it has been asserted that the Collector and the Commissioner did not hear the petitioner and since the application for partition regarding khewat no. 68, bearing case no. 40/P/92, stood dismissed, therefore, the present application for partition is for partial partition and urged for accepting the revision petition. 7. In reply, the Ld. Lastly, it has been asserted that the Collector and the Commissioner did not hear the petitioner and since the application for partition regarding khewat no. 68, bearing case no. 40/P/92, stood dismissed, therefore, the present application for partition is for partial partition and urged for accepting the revision petition. 7. In reply, the Ld. counsel for the respondents submitted that after devising the modes of partition on 30.12.1992, the partition was done on the spot on 16.2.1992, thereafter, the application for withdrawal was filed by the petitioner which was objected to by the respondent with the request that the partition may be finalised and he be treated as applicant, which has been allowed by A.C. Ist Grade vide order dated 16.6.1993, and the matter was adjourned for 22.7.1993, for filing objections to the partition done on the spot. That on 22.7.1993, the respondents accepted the partition by recording his statement while petitioner refused to give statement nor filed any objection. Ld. counsel further added that the order dated 30.12.1992 framing mode of partition as well the order dated 16.6.1993, allowing his application for impleading him as an applicant, have not been agitated, as such, both these orders have attained finality. That against the order dated 22.7.1992, four appeals were filed before the Collector and thereafter four revisions before the Commissioner, have also been dismissed and important fact is that only one revision has been filed before this court which relates to one case and other judgments of the courts below having attained finality. The contention raised in the present revision petition with respect to withdrawal of partition application, Ld. counsel has given reference of subsection 4 of section 130, which clinches the issue that either of the party in a partition case can continue with the partition and same was ordered vide order dated 16.6.1993 by the A.C. Ist Grade, which order has attained finality, now the challenge as laid by the petitioner, is bad in law and amounts to the abuse of process of law. With regard to dispute of partition of khasra no. 2448 and 2451, the Ld. counsel averred that Clause-3 of mode of partition clearly mentions that khasra no. With regard to dispute of partition of khasra no. 2448 and 2451, the Ld. counsel averred that Clause-3 of mode of partition clearly mentions that khasra no. 2448 is a shop, but one room of the same is in possession of applicant in the shape of a cattle shed while the remaining two rooms are in possession of replying respondent and mode of partition provides that partition be done in accordance with the possession. Further the Missal Hakiat, shows that khasra no. 2451 is in possession of respondent, but has been allotted to Roshan Lal, rather the objection ought to have been of the replying respondent instead of the petitioner. In view of the above, the Ld. counsel for the respondent urged that the revision petition may be dismissed. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the Ld. counsel for both the parties and gone through the record of the courts below. The first question for determination is that the petitioner has filed only one revision petition before this court against the four separate cases. The perusal of the revision petition clearly shows that the present revision petition has been agitated, against the order relating to partition of land bearing kahta no. 112 file no. 39/P/92. On bare perusal of the file, it transpires that the petitioner is not aggrieved with the orders passed by the court below in other three partition files relating to khata nos. 111, 115 and 68, however, he has referred the same in the written arguments. Since, the claim of the petitioner relating to other three original partition files no. 38/P/92, 40/P/92 and 41/P/92, is not an issue before this court, as such, the same is not to be determined/considered. Hence, there appears no irregularity or illegality in filing singly revision petition. 9. The perusal of the case file no. 38/P/92 of the Assistant Collector which relates to partition of khata no. 112, clearly shows that khasra no. 2448 is recorded as gair mumkin shop' in the record of rights as well on the spot, and as per clause-3 of modes of partition dated 30.12.1992, a room is in possession applicant/present petitioner as gohran and two rooms ere in possession of replying respondent. The partition was ordered to be done as per possession and as per share, which has not been disputed by any of the parties. The partition of this khasra no. The partition was ordered to be done as per possession and as per share, which has not been disputed by any of the parties. The partition of this khasra no. has been done by the field staff keeping in view the said clause of mode of partition and the portion which is in possession of petitioner, has been allotted to him. Second claim of the petitioner is with regard to partition of khasra no. 2451, this khasra no. has been exclusively recorded in possession of the respondent, but the petitioner has also been allotted land from this khasra no also to balance the quality and classification of land. Hence, the Ld. Commissioner, has also rightly observed that regarding dIsturbing the possession, if there is any objection, it should have been raised by the respondent and not by the petitioner. Further perusal of record also reflects that the deficiency of land in khata no. 112, has been found compensated for in other two khatas, which has not been objected to by the petitioner since he is getting more land in these khata from his share. Therefore, these claims of the petitioner do not appear to be justifiable which have been rightly turned down by the courts below. 10. With regard to the claim of regarding partial partition, separate applications were filed for partition of each khatta and partition proceedings have been conducted accordingly without leaving any particular khasra nos. in these khattas and the land revenue has also been apportioned accordingly, as such, it cannot be termed as partial partition. Moreover, if the parties are willing to partition khata no. 68 bearing file no. 40/P/92, which was ordered to be filed on the willingness of both parties, they may approach the A.C. Ist accordingly. Hence, the plea of partial partition is not sustainable/maintainable in the eyes of law. 11. The Ld. Collector as well the Ld. Commissioner, Kangra Division, have given detailed and well reasoned findings while upholding the orders passed by the A.C. Ist Grade, who conducted the partition proceedings by following due process of law. Therefore, I also do not I find that any illegalities or irregularities have been committed by the courts below which warrant any interference of this court in a second revision. Consequently, the orders passed by the courts below are upheld and the revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. 12. Therefore, I also do not I find that any illegalities or irregularities have been committed by the courts below which warrant any interference of this court in a second revision. Consequently, the orders passed by the courts below are upheld and the revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. 12. Order be communicated to the parties. The records of the courts below be returned and the file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.