ORDER 1. These two revision petitions have been filed against order dated 16-2-2010 of Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar in the matter of partition. Since, these have arisen from the same order, they decided through this single order; a copy thereof be placed on each file. 2. Facts of he case, in brief, are that Col. Raminder Singh filed an application of partition of land situated in village Kot Kalan, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, in which the Assistant Collector Ist Grade sanctioned final partition on 10-10-1999. Lashkar Singh etc. challenged this order in appeal filed by one Gurdip Singh, the Collector remanded the case back to Assistant Collector Ist for fresh decision vide his order dated 23-2-2001 with the direction o give an opportunity to the parties to file objections to the mode of partition. Appeal filed by Raminder Singh against the order of Collector was dismissed by Commissioner on 25-3-2004. Before Assistant Collector Ist Grade the respondents in partition application contended that civil suit regarding the land in dispute was pending and till the decision of civil suit the partition proceedings cannot be decided. However, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, vide his order dated 15-4-2005 confirmed the earlier partition order dated 20-10-1999 with the observation that there was no stay on the partition proceeding by the civil court. Appeal filed by Lashkar Singh against this order was dismissed by the Collector on 3-5-2007. Thereafter, Lashkar Singh filed further revision petition before Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, who vide order dated 16-2-2010 accepted the same and remanded the case to Assistant Collector Ist Grade for fresh partition after deleting the area under Canal from the partition and keeping the same joint between the parties. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals) observed that from the persual of partition papers, it is clear that a Canal is flowing through the area which has been partitioned. Baldev Singh and others have been allotted 11 kanals 8 Marlas land out of which 6 Kanal 11 Marlas is under the Canal. Similarly, Lashkar Singh petitioner has been allotted 6 marlas of canal land. This land under canal could not have been partitioned. Hence, the present two revision petitions challenging the order of Additional Commissioner (Appeals) before this Court. 3. I have heard counsel for the petitions and perused the written arguments submitted by counsel for the respondent. Similarly, Lashkar Singh petitioner has been allotted 6 marlas of canal land. This land under canal could not have been partitioned. Hence, the present two revision petitions challenging the order of Additional Commissioner (Appeals) before this Court. 3. I have heard counsel for the petitions and perused the written arguments submitted by counsel for the respondent. The Commissioner in the impugned order has directed Assistant collector Grade-I to pass a fresh order of partition after deleting the area under canal which should kept joint between the parties. Counsel for petitioners have argued that this order is bad because there is actually no canal operating at site. Assistant Collector Grade-I had inspected the site before making the final order of partition wherein he has recorded that the previous order of Assistant Collector Grade-I, Jalandhar dated 20-10-99 sanctioning the partition is in order and the same be implemented. This order had been passed after affording an opportunity to the share-holders to make objections to the Mode of Partition in compliance with Collector, Jalandhar’s order dated 23-2-01. 4. Written arguments by respondent are that the Commissioner has correctly recorded that it is clear from the revenue record that there is a canal in this joint Khewat with a total area of 6 kanals 17marlas fallin in Khasra Nos. 330 Min (0-15), 332 Min (0-15), 335 Min (0-8), 331 Min (0-12), 351 Min (0-5), 334 Min (2-10), 350 Min (0-14) and others. The area under canal is also shwon in the Aks Shajra. However, these facts have been ignored by Assistant Collector Grade-I and therefore the Commissioner has correctly remanded the case for a fresh decision. 5. I have perused the record of the case. It is amply clear that the jamabandi records various khasra numbers, including those mentioned above, as “gair-mumkin nehar” and in the possession of Mehkam Nehar (Irrigation Departmental). Since the revenue record carries with it a presumption of truth, the Assistant Collector Grade-I could not have brushed it aside, therefore, the Commissioner’s order is upheld and the petitions are dismissed. Announced.