Judgment : P.S. Rana, J. Order Present civil writ petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that suit land comprised in old khasra Nos. 96, 248 new Khasra Nos. 521/279, 430 kitas 2 measuring 5 bighas situated in Chak Rauni Pargana Matiana Tehsil Theog District Shimla H.P. was mortgaged. It is pleaded that petitioner filed application under Section 4 of H.P. Restitution of mortgaged lands Act 1976 for restitution of possession of mortgaged land before learned Collector Theog Sub Division Shimla H.P. which was allowed vide order dated 13.3.2006. It is pleaded that thereafter proforma respondent Nos. 3 to 8 filed appeal before learned Divisional Commissioner Shimla which was dismissed on dated 16.4.2009. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner filed execution petition on dated 17.8.2009 for attestation of mutation relating to mortgaged property in revenue record. It is also pleaded that Collector ordered that possession be delivered to the petitioner from proforma respondents immediately. It is pleaded that proforma respondents did not allow the petitioner to enter into the suit land and orchard situated in suit land was also damaged. It is pleaded that revision petition filed by proforma respondent Nos. 3 to 8 was also dismissed on dated 10.11.2009 by learned Financial Commissioner. It is pleaded that thereafter CPW No. 4342 of 2009 was filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for quashing the entire order of revenue authorities and said revision petition was also dismissed by Hon’ble High Court on dated 18.8.2010. It is pleaded that petitioner has filed number of representations for delivery of possession but all in vain. Petitioner sought relief against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 with regard to the delivery of possession of redeemed land forthwith. Petitioner sought additional relief against respondent Nos. 3 to 8 restraining them from any sort of interference in suit land. Petitioner also sought relief of compensation of Rs. 15 lacs (Rupees fifteen lacs only) towards damage, losses, mental agony and harassment against respondent Nos. 3 to 11. 3. Per contra response filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded therein that petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition. Petitioner also sought relief of compensation of Rs. 15 lacs (Rupees fifteen lacs only) towards damage, losses, mental agony and harassment against respondent Nos. 3 to 11. 3. Per contra response filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded therein that petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition. It is pleaded that land comprised in Khasra No. 521/279 and 438 kitas 2 measuring 5 bighas situated in Chak Rouni Tehsil Theog District Shimla was mortgaged for consideration amount of Rs. 750/- (Rupees seven hundred fifty only) in favour of one Udi Ram son of Beli Ram resident of village Teer Pargana Matiana Tehsil Theog District Shimla. It is pleaded that mortgage was effected vide mutation No. 155 dated 7.12.1943 in the revenue record. It is pleaded that mortgagor died issueless and mortgagor had three brothers namely Bhagta, Mehar Singh and Dharma. It is pleaded that Anantia mortgagor was uncle of father of the petitioner and further pleaded that Anantia had gifted his entire land in favour of petitioner and his brother Ramesh. It is pleaded that during life time of Mehar Singh private family partition took place and land in question came in share of father of petitioner about 40-45 years back. It is pleaded that case under Section 4 of H.P. Restitution of mortaged land Act 1976 was filed by petitioner for restitution of mortgaged land and land was redeemed. It is pleaded that petitioner is trying to take possession over suit land which is in possession of respondent Nos. 3 to 11. It is pleaded that in present case question of title is involved. It is pleaded that intricate questions of law are involved in present case and matter could be decided by the Court only having competent jurisdiction and civil writ petition is not maintainable. Prayer for dismissal of petition sought. 4. Per contra separate response filed on behalf of correspondent No. 6 pleaded therein that land stood redeemed by the Collector Theog. It is pleaded that even Hon’ble High Court on dated 18.8.2010 disposed of CWP No. 4342 of 2009 filed by non-petitioner Daya Ram. It is pleaded that intricate question of law and facts are involved in present case which can not be decided in writ petition. It is pleaded that even Hon’ble High Court on dated 18.8.2010 disposed of CWP No. 4342 of 2009 filed by non-petitioner Daya Ram. It is pleaded that intricate question of law and facts are involved in present case which can not be decided in writ petition. It is pleaded that liberty was granted by Hon’ble High Court to non-petitioner Daya Ram in CWP No. 4342 of 2009 which was decided on dated 18.8.2010 to establish his right title or interest in the land in question by instituting suit before Civil Court. It is pleaded that petitioner is not legally entitled to claim possession. Prayer for dismissal of writ petition sought. 5. Submission of petitioner that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to decide execution petition with regard to delivery of possession of redeemed land forthwith is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that Collector Sub Division Theog District Shimla H.P. in case No. 3 of 2003 decided on dated 13.3.2006 titled Anant Ram vs. Daya Ram and others ordered to redeem the land and also ordered that mortgaged land stands redeemed. Learned Collector further ordered that in revenue entries reflecting mortgage of suit land in favour of mortgagee shall be deleted from revenue record. Learned Collector further directed vide order dated 13.3.2006 that copy of order shall be sent to A.C. 1st Grade Theog for compliance. It is proved on record that thereafter Daya Ram and others filed miscellaneous Appeal No. 50 of 2006 titled Daya Ram and others vs. Anand Ram and others before Commissioner Shimla (H.P.) which was decided on 16.4.2009 and learned Commissioner Shimla affirmed the order passed by learned Collector and dismissed the appeal filed by Daya Ram and others. It is also proved on record that thereafter Shri Daya Ram and others filed revision petition No. 116 of 2009 before Financial Commissioner (Appeals) H.P. and revision petition was disposed of by learned Financial Commissioner on dated 10.11.2009 and learned Financial Commissioner affirmed the orders of learned Collector and learned Divisional Commissioner and dismissed the revision petition filed by Daya Ram. It is also proved on record that thereafter Daya Ram and others filed CWP No. 4342 of 2009 before Hon’ble High Court titled Daya Ram and others vs. State of H.P. and others which was decided on 18.8.2010 and Hon’ble High Court of H.P. directed Daya Ram to establish his title in suit property by way of instituting suit before civil Court. It is proved on record that suit land was shown as redeemed in revenue record. In view of the fact that suit land already redeemed in revenue papers it is held that no direction can be given to co-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at this stage of case because respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have already complied the order passed by Collector and affirmed by learned Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner in revenue record. 6. Another submission of petitioner that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. State of H.P. and Assistant Collector 1st Grade be immediately directed to deliver the possession of redeemed land to petitioner is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that suit land comprised of twenty shares and out of total twenty shares Hem Chand, Ami Chand, Lal Chand and Amar Chand have 10/20 shares and Chet Ram has 4/20 share and Anantia has 2/20 share and Harish Chand and Ramesh Chand have 2/20 share and Ratti Ram has 1/20 share and Amar Chand has 1/20 share. It is proved on record that suit land is joint inter se the parties and has not been partitioned in accordance with law. It is well settled law that when mortgaged is redeemed in joint property then only symbolic possession could be granted to mortgagor. It is proved on record that symbolic possession was delivered to mortgagor by revenue authorities in accordance with law. Court is of the opinion that in joint property if a co-owner intended to obtain any specific portion of joint property as per his share then he is under legal obligation to file partition proceedings before revenue officers as per H.P. Land Revenue Act. It is held that specific possession in particular portion of land could be granted to petitioner only after partition of joint land by competent authority of law in accordance with H.P. Land Revenue Act. 7. Another submission of petitioner that respondent Nos. It is held that specific possession in particular portion of land could be granted to petitioner only after partition of joint land by competent authority of law in accordance with H.P. Land Revenue Act. 7. Another submission of petitioner that respondent Nos. 3 to 11 be restrained from interfering in suit land is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that in joint property every co-sharer has right over every inch of land till the suit land is not partitioned in accordance with law. Court is of the opinion that non-petitioner Nos. 3 to 11 can not be restrained from interfering over suit land till the suit land is not partitioned in accordance with law by competent authority. It is well settled law that possession of one co-sharer is possession of all in the eyes of law till joint land is not partitioned in accordance with law. (See AIR 1961 Punjab 528 titled Sant Ram Nagina Ram vs. Daya Ram Nagina Ram and others) 8. Another submission of petitioner that compensation to the tune of Rs.15 lacs (Rupees fifteen lacs only) be granted to petitioner towards damage, loss, mental agony and harassment is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that in joint property damage can not be granted to one of co-owners of joint property till joint property is not partitioned in accordance with law because every co-sharer/co-owner has right over every inch of land till land is not partitioned in accordance with law by competent authority. Hence it is held that till suit land is not partitioned in accordance with law no damage could be granted to petitioner as of today. 9. In view of above said observations petition filed under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India is disposed of accordingly with observations that suit land already stood redeemed in revenue papers and petitioner is at liberty to obtain the possession of specific portion of suit land according to his share after filing partition proceedings as provided under the H.P. Land Revenue Act. No order as to costs. Petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.