ORDER : SHRI NARINDER, CHAUHAN, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 has been filed against the order 23.04.2015, passed by the Ld. Commissioner, Shimla Division in case No.6/2012, whereby he upheld the orders dated 7.12.2011, passed by the Collector, Sub-Division, Shimla (Rural) in case No. 10-VIII/2010, and order dated 19.12.2010, passed by the A.C. 1st Grade, Sunni. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the present respondent filed an application for partition of land comprised in khasra No.572/264 measuring 0-05-53 hectares situated at Mohal Jubbar, Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla, against the co-sharer (present petitioner), under Section 123 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954. The petitioner objected to the partition application on the ground that the entire land has been given to the petitioner by the brother of the present respondent (Sh. Thakur Dass son of Sh. Molak Ram r/o village Jubbar, Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla) and he (present petitioner) is in peaceful, adverse and un-interrupted possession of the said land for the last several years. The petitioner also took the plea that application for partition cannot be allowed since the matter is of a civil nature which can be decided only by a civil court. The A.C. 1st Grade, Sunni allowed the application for partition of land in question and devised a mode of partition vide order dated 19.2.2010. 3. Feeling aggrieved by this order of Mode of Partition passed by the A.C. 1st Grade, Sunni, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector, Sub-Division, Shimla (Rural), Himachal Pradesh mainly on the grounds that on 23.1.2010, the petitioner has categorically and specifically stated that he has already paid the consideration amount on 22.04.2002 to Sh. Thakur Dass son of Sh. Molak Ram (brother of present respondent) in the presence of witnesses and he is in possession of the land in question since then, that the A.C. 1st Grade has failed to consider the statement of the present petitioner. After considering the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and perusing the record of trial court, the Ld. Collector, Sub-Division Shimla dismissed the appeal (No. 10-VII/2010) vide his order dated 7.12.2011. 4. Still dissatisfied, the present petitioner filed a revision petition No.6/2012 before the Ld. After considering the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and perusing the record of trial court, the Ld. Collector, Sub-Division Shimla dismissed the appeal (No. 10-VII/2010) vide his order dated 7.12.2011. 4. Still dissatisfied, the present petitioner filed a revision petition No.6/2012 before the Ld. Commissioner, Shimla Division challenging the order dated 7.12.2011 passed by the Collector, Sub-Division Shimla (Rural) in appeal No:10-VIII/2010, who also dismissed the same vide his order dated 23.4.2015, observing as follows:- "Having perused the entire record of the case and giving due consideration to the arguments put forth on behalf of both the parties, I, find that the present petitioner only purchased land ? share measuring 0-01-64 hectare out of the land comprised in khasra number 264 area of land measuring 0-13-09 hectares situated at Mohal Jubbar, Tehsil Sunni, District Shimla Himachal Pradesh vide sale deed number 46/1998 dated 15.6.1998, registered in the office of the Sub-registrar, Sunni, District Shimla Himachal Pradesh. The said land was purchased from Shri Thakur Dass son of Shri Molak Ram. That on 19.3.2006 mutation number 97 regarding private partition qua the above land and some other land was sanctioned and as a result of this partition Khasra number 264 was subdivided into three parts i.e. Khasra number 264/1 (0-04-42 hect) khasra number 264/2 (0-04-34 hect.) and khara number 264/1 (0-05-33 hect. Khasra number 264/3 (now 572/264) measuring 0-05-53 hectares remained in point ownership and possession of Shri Thakur Dass son of Shri Molak Ram and the present petitioner in which Shri Thakur Dass become owner to the extent 9/13 share and the remaining 4/13 share came to be recorded in favour of the present petitioner on account of said partition. After the death of Shri Thakur Dass the mutation regarding his inheritance was attested in favour her sisters namely Smt. Batti Devi, Smt. Bimla, Smt Kamla and Leela Watti in equal shares on 17.6.2008. Later on Smt. Batti, Smt. Bimla and Smt Leela Watti relinquished their share in favour of Smt. Kamla who is respondent in the present petition. The present petitioner has taken the plea in the present petition. The present petitioner has taken the plea in the petition that he had purchased the entire share measuring 0-03-28 hectares of Shri Thakur Dass son of Shri Molak Ram out of Khasra Number 264 measuring 0-13-09 hect. Is incorrect. The present petitioner has taken the plea in the present petition. The present petitioner has taken the plea in the petition that he had purchased the entire share measuring 0-03-28 hectares of Shri Thakur Dass son of Shri Molak Ram out of Khasra Number 264 measuring 0-13-09 hect. Is incorrect. The present petitioner can not claim anything beyond the registered sale deed number 46/1998 dated 15.6.1998, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sunni, District Shimla Himachal Pradesh. I find that Collector Sub-Division, Shimla (Rural) did not commit any irregularities while upholding the order dated 19.2.2010 passed by Assistant Collector First Grade, Shimla (Rural), Shimla. The present revision is dismissed entirely being devoid of merits. The order d&ted 7.12.2011 passed by the Collector Sub-Division, Shimla is upheld." Hence, the present revision petition. 5. I have heard the Id. Counsels for both the parties and have gone through the record of the courts below. Apart from the grounds taken in the revision petition, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner drew attention to the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and argued that as per missal Hakiyat the area of Khasra No.264 land measuring 0-13-09 hect. was recorded in the possession of Shri Thakur Dass son of Molak Ram and on account of the entries an agreement of sale was entered on 11.12.1996, that the seller was competent to sell his property as per provisions of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The agreement/document has been written by the document writer in the presence of both the parties and the same has been singed by independent witnesses. As per said agreement Sh. Thakur Dass has sold the area measuring 0-03-28 hectares out of Khasra No.264 to the present petitioner for a consideration amounting to Rs. 16,000/- and the same is in the possession of the petitioner. Ld. Counsel further argued that regarding non-registration of the document, as per proviso to section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, such document has evidentiary value for the purposes of specific performance under Chapter 11 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 (sic-1963) and section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Ld. Ld. Counsel further argued that regarding non-registration of the document, as per proviso to section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, such document has evidentiary value for the purposes of specific performance under Chapter 11 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 (sic-1963) and section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that once a question of title is raised by the parties, it is incumbent upon the revenue officer not below the rank of A.C. 1st Grade, under the provisions of Section 129 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, to convert himself into a Civil Court and proceed to decide the question of title in the first instance. But in the instant case, the A.C. 1st Grade, has proceeded to devise the Mode of Partition without following the mandatory provisions of the Act. Lastly, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order dated passed by the A.C. 1st Grade is illegal and in violation of the mandatory provisions of law and both the courts below have failed to appreciate the provisions of law, and the revision be allowed. 6. Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that as per record-of-rights, the present petitioner is owner of 164 square meters of land in khasra number 572/264, and as such he is entitled to such area only. Regarding the contention of the petitioner qua purchase of khasra no.264, the same is baseless and had there been any agreement to that extent, the petitioner should have registered the sale deed at the relevant time. It has further been argued that the Ld. A.C. 1st Grade, has rightly proceeded to partition the land in question and has ordered the mode of partition vide order dated 19.02.2010, as per provisions of law, which order has further been upheld in appeal by the Ld. Collector Sub-Division Shimla (Rural) vide order dated 7.12.2011, in case number 10-V111/2010, as well in first revision petition No.6/2012, by the Commissioner Shimla Division vide order dated 23.4.2015. Lastly the Ld. Counsel for the respondent urged that the present revision petition may be dismissed in the interest of justice. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and carefully perused the records of the courts below. Lastly the Ld. Counsel for the respondent urged that the present revision petition may be dismissed in the interest of justice. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and carefully perused the records of the courts below. The perusal of file of A.C. 1st Grade, Sunni, discloses that vide sale deed No.46/98, copy of which is available at pages 33-38 of said file, Sh. Ishwar Dass (present petitioner) has purchased only 0-01-64 hectares of land comprising in Khatta/Khatauni No.42 min/90 min, khasra number 264 area measuring 0-13-09 hectares, from Sh. Thakur Dass son of Sh. Molak (predecessor-in-interest of the present respondent). From the perusal of copy of Mutation No.97 attested on 19.3.2006 qua private partition, (copy of pages 89 to 98) it is clear that in family partition whereby out of Khasra Number 264/3 (now Khasra number 572/264) area measuring 00-05-33 (total 13 shares), has been allotted to Shri Thakur Dass son of Shri Molak (9 share) and Sh. Iswar Dass son of Dharmu (4 share) Entry to that extent is there in the jamabandi for the year, 2007-08 available at pages 87/88 of the file of trial court, which shows that the present petitioner is a co-owner in possession of the land bearing Khasra No.572/264 along with respondent, to the extent of 4/13 share. Presumption of truth is attached to the record of right i.e. Jamabandi. The present respondent has inherited the share of Shri Thakur Dass, after his death and relinquishment of shares by other co-sharers. On the basis of other unregistered sale deed stated to have been prepared and signed on 11.12.1996 by both the parties and the witnesses, the petitioner is claiming that he has purchased the entire share of Sh. Thakur Dass in aforesaid Khasra number i.e. share area measuring 0-03-28 hectares. This document cannot be relied upon, for reasons that if this deed was written in the year 1996, then in the year 1998 registration of entire khasra number should have been done whereas in the year 1998 only 0-01-64 Hectares land has been purchased out of Khasra number 264. Further, in the statement made by the petitioner on 23.1.2010 before the A.C. 1st Grade, Sunni, it has been stated that he has paid an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to Sh. Further, in the statement made by the petitioner on 23.1.2010 before the A.C. 1st Grade, Sunni, it has been stated that he has paid an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to Sh. Thakur Dass son of Molak, whereas in the sale deed stated to have been made in the year 1996, the entire consideration amount has been indicated as Rs.16,000/-. Moreover, had there been any such deed, the same should have been got registered. Hence, the deed stated to have been made in the 1996 is not beyond the shadow of doubt and as such the claim of the petitioner cannot be allowed on the basis of such document. The Honble Supreme Court of India in <ï><ß>"Suraj Lamp v. State of Haryana" [2012\340 ITR 1 (SC) 8. In so far as the claim of the petitioner under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is concerned, the claim cannot be considered in view of Amendment Act, 2001(48) of 2001). In Section 17 of the Registration Act, sub-section 1(A) provides, "the documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said Section 53-A". Similarly the amendment of Section 53-A of Transfer of Property act, 1882, omitting the word" the contract, though required to be registered, has not been registered, or", is a sequel to amendment of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. Therefore, registration of documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 has been made compulsory. The result of the amendment is that only registered contracts for sale in respect of immovable properly shall be recognised for purposes of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 9. Hence, in view of above discussion, I find that neither the Collector, Sub-Division, Shimla (Rural) nor the Ld. Commissioner, Shimla Division, has committed any irregularity or illegality while dismissing the appeal and revision respectively. Hence, the present revision petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 9. Hence, in view of above discussion, I find that neither the Collector, Sub-Division, Shimla (Rural) nor the Ld. Commissioner, Shimla Division, has committed any irregularity or illegality while dismissing the appeal and revision respectively. Hence, the present revision petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Needless to stage, the A.C. 1st Grade may proceed further to complete the partition proceedings in accordance with the provisions of law. 10. Announced in the open court today the 17th May, 2016. Record of the courts below be returned and file be cosigned to the record room after due completion.