ORDER : NARINDER, CHAUHAN, J. 1. These two revision petitions under section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, are directed against the order dated 22.11.1996, passed by the Id. Commissioner, Mandi Division vide which he has dismissed the revisions no. 152/92 and 153/92 filed by the present petitioner against the orders dated 9.7.1992 of the Distt. Collector, Hamirpur passed in case Nos. 10/92 and 17/92. 2. Since, both these revision petitions originate from common proceedings, they are thus being taken/heard together and disposed off through a common order. 3. Brief facts of the cases are that initially one Smt. Premi Devi and Shankar Singh, made complaints to the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur for partition of land comprised in khata no. 145 min, khatauni no. 163 min, 165, 166 min, 166 min, bearing khasra no. 1067, measuring 7-17 kanals, situated in Tikka Mohi, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil Hamirpur, which is a part of the above khata no. 145. On the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur, the A.C. 1st Grade, Hamirpur, got the said land partitioned vide order dated 21.3.1983. Shri Shankar Dass, one of the complainants, challenged the above order of the A.C. 1st Grade in appeal before the Distt. Collector, Hamirpur, who accepted the appeal (no date of order mentioned), on the ground that the partitioning of one khasra no. out of a khata is irregular and not sustainable in the eyes of law, and remanded the matter to the A.C. 1st "Grade, for a full and complete partition. In compliance to the directions of Deputy Commissioner, the A.C. 1st Grade vide order dated 19.10.1987, directed Shri Shankar Dass and Smt. Premi Devi to file a partition application so that all the co-sharers could be summoned. 4. Therefore, on 5.8.1988, Smt Premi Devi and 30 others, jointly filed a fresh application for partition of land comprised in khata no. 177, khatauni nos. 193 to 215, khasra nos. kita 34, area measuring 90-12 kanals, situated in Tikka Mohi, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh and case no. 10/83/88, was accordingly registered by the A.C. 1st Grade. During the course of hearing, the respondents including Shankar Dass and present petitioners, filed objections and raised issues regarding question of title. After hearing the counsels for both the parties, the Id. kita 34, area measuring 90-12 kanals, situated in Tikka Mohi, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh and case no. 10/83/88, was accordingly registered by the A.C. 1st Grade. During the course of hearing, the respondents including Shankar Dass and present petitioners, filed objections and raised issues regarding question of title. After hearing the counsels for both the parties, the Id. A.C. 1st Grade, came to the conclusion that no question of title is involved and rejected the objections vide order dated 6.5.1992 Thereafter, the A.C. 1st Grade, proceeded further and devised a mode of partition vide order dated 22.6.1992. 5. Feeling aggrieved with both the order dated 6.5.1992, rejecting the plea of a question of title, and order dated 22.6.1992, regarding preparation of mode of partition, passed by the A.C. 1st Grade, the present petitioners filed two separate appeals no. 10/92 and 17/92, before the Collector, Distt. Hamirpur, who vide a common order dated 9.7.1992, disposed off both the appeals, and directed the A.C. 1st Grade, to hear the matter on the spot where the land is situated, and in the presence of all the parties including the legal heirs who have not been properly made parties, and to decide the matter afresh within a period of two months. 6. Feeling aggrieved, with these orders of the Id. Collector, the present petitioners filed two separate revision petitions no. 152/92 and 153/92, before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, who vide the impugned orders dated 22.11.1996, dismissed both, through a common order and upheld the orders passed by both the courts below. Hence, these revision petitions. 7. During pendency of the revision petitions, number of respondents expired and their legal heirs have been brought on record through various applications and orders, which are not deemed necessary to mentioned here. 8. The grounds taken before this court are that the land in dispute is a Shamlat land" and as such, cannot be partitioned after coming into force of Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting & Utilization Act, 1974, and the orders passed by courts below are without jurisdiction; that the Id. 8. The grounds taken before this court are that the land in dispute is a Shamlat land" and as such, cannot be partitioned after coming into force of Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting & Utilization Act, 1974, and the orders passed by courts below are without jurisdiction; that the Id. Commissioner has not taken into consideration this aspect that there are some other persons in this partition proceedings whose names do not find mention in the column of possession, which clearly shows that there was a question of title involved of the land in dispute, therefore, the court below has no jurisdiction to pass the order for partition; that the partition cannot be ordered on the basis of documents which do not carry a presumption of truth; as in this case the shares in the column of possession have not been defined and it cannot be said that the shares, recorded in the 'Fard Hassadari Malkan' are the correct shares, the determination of shares had to be done first by a competent court. Further, it has been contended that the courts below acted in utter disregard to the provision of law, by not following the prescribed procedure for deciding the partition application. Lastly, that the Id. Commissioner did not give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as their request to bring the lawyer from outside, was illegally turned down. 9. I have heard the Id. Counsel for both the parties. Apart from the grounds of the revision petition, Id. Counsel for the petitioners argued that most of the land is abadi and some of the land has been sold. He further argued that the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction filed by one of the respondent Shri Khem Chand, has been dismissed, as such, he has no interest in the property. In support of his contentions, Id. Counsel has cited case of <ï><ß>"Fauja Singh v. Pritam Singh" [PLJ] 1993, 398] <ß>"Sucha Singh v. Balbir Singh & ors." [PLJ} 1964, 160] 10. On careful consideration of the arguments advanced by both the parties, following three issues are to be adjudicated upon:- 1. Whether the land in question, being village common land, could be partitioned in view of the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Village Common Land Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974? 2. Whether question of title is involved, as claimed by the petitioners? 3. Whether the land in question, being village common land, could be partitioned in view of the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Village Common Land Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974? 2. Whether question of title is involved, as claimed by the petitioners? 3. Whether the mode of partition has been prepared by the A.C. 1st Grade, in accordance with the Law? 11. For determination of issue No.1 above, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of Sub-Section "(1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974, which provides for vestment of "shamlat Land" in the State of H.P., as follows:- "3. Vesting of rights in the State Governmental) Notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained in any other law of the time being in force or in any agreement, instruments, custom or usage or any decree or order of any court or other authority all rights, title and interests including the contingent interest if any, the landowner in the lands in any estate- (a) Vested in a Panchayat under section 4 of the Punjab Village common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961) as in force in the areas added to Himachal Pradesh under section 5 of the Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 (31 of 1966) except lands used or reserved for the benefit of village community including streets, lanes, playgrounds, schools, drinking wells or ponds within abadi deh or garah deh. (b) Described in the revenue records as shamlat taraf, pattis, pannas, thola, shamlat, shamlat deh, shamlat chak, shamlat tika or by any such other description and not used according to revenue records for the benefit of the community in the village or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village in the areas added to Himachal Pradesh under section 5 of the Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966; and (c) Described in revenue records as shamlat, shamlat deh, shamlat taraf, shamlat chak, patti or by any other such description in the areas, comprised in Himachal Pradesh, immediately before 1st November, 1966; Shall stand extinguished and all such rights, title and interest shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. (2), The provisions of sub-section (1) of this section shall not apply to lands described in clause (b) and (c) of the sub-section if, before the date of commencement of this Act- (a) partition of such lands is made by the individuals co-sharers through a process of law by a competent court or authority, (b) transfer of such lands is made by the landowner by way of sale, gift or exchange, (c) such land built upon by an inhabitant by raising a residential house or cow-shed, (d) Land recorded as "shamlat tika Hasab Rasad Malguzari" or by any other name in the ownership column of jamabandi and assessed to land revenue and has been continuously recorded in cultivating possession of the Co-sharers so recorded before 26th January, 1950 to the extent of their shares therein: Provided that the provisions of this clause shall not be applicable to such lands which have already been put to use by the Government. (2-a). The land reverted back to co-sharers under clause(d) of sub-section (2) shall not be transferred by such co-sharers, by way of sale, gift, mortgagee or otherwise, during a period of twenty five years from the date of mutation of such land. (2-b). No Registrar or the Sub-Registrar, appointed under the Registration Act, 1908,(16 of 1908) shall register any document pertaining to transfer of such and, which is in contravention of sub-section (2-a), shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances." 12. As is clear from the perusal of aforesaid provisions Sub-section (1) of section (3) of the Act, ibid provides for vestment of certain "shamlat lands" in the State of H P Whereas sub-Section (2) of said section exempts certain lands from vestment, i.e. land which were already partitioned by the individuals co-sharers through a process of law by a competent court or authority, or which were transferred by the landowner by way of sale, gift or exchange or land built upon by an inhabitant by raising a residential house or cow-shed. 13. 13. Further land recorded as Shamlat Tika Hasab Rasad Malguzari' or by any other name in the ownership column of jamabandi and assessed to land revenue and has been continuously recorded in cultivating possession of the co-sharers so recorded before 26th January, 1950 to the extent of their shares therein were also exempted from vestment subject to the condition that such lands have not already been put to use by the Government. It is pertinent to mention here that clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 3, reproduced above, has been inserted in the year, 2001, vide Amendment Act No. 20 of 2001, retrospectively i.e. with effect from the date of enforcement the Principal Act. 14. From the perusal of relevant jamabandi for the year, 1985-86, attached with the case file of trial court at pages 179-183., it is clear that the land in question, being built up or under cultivating possession of co-sharers and assessed to land revenue, falls under the exemption provided in Sub-Section (2) of Section (3) of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974, and as such same was not to be vested in the State Government. Therefore, such land can be got partitioned by the co-sharers. So far as the question of determination of shares of individuals is concerned, in the ownership column of relevant jamabandi, the land is recorded as "shamlat tika Hasab Rasad Malguzari Shajra. Hence shares of individuals are to be determined on the basis of share recorded in the "shajra Nasab" and the perusal of copy of "Sharjra Nasab" for the said revenue village clearly shows the share of individuals in the "shamlat land". 15. In so far as the second issue is concerned, from the perusal of record of trial court, it is clear that though the petitioners have raised the question of title before him, but they failed to place on record any sufficient oral as well as documentary evidences to establish their claim and as such the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that no such issue is involved in the matter, which order has also further rightly been upheld in appeal as well as in first revision, by the Id. Collector and Id. Commissioner, respectively. 16. Collector and Id. Commissioner, respectively. 16. So far as the third issue is concerned, the perusal of record of trial court clearly shows that Mode of Partition has been devised on 22.6.1992, in the presence of parties and no clause of the Mode of Partition so devised appears in contravention of the basis provisions of law applicable to partition. Moreover, as is evident from the record, parties to the partition application are numerous and that is why Id. Collector, Hamirpur had rightly directed the A.C. 1st Grade, Hamirpur to conduct the partition proceedings in the area where the land in question is situated. Furthermore, the intention of the present petitioners is not clear, as on the one hand they are taking the plea of "question of title" but on the other hand they are also claiming that the land in question should be vested in the State Government under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974. Moreover, they are being given their share in land in dispute. It reveals that the petitioners are trying to just delay the partition proceedings on one pretext or other. 17. In view of the above observations, no illegality or irregularity appears to have been committed by the trial court while conducting partition of land in question, and the orders put under challenge have been rightly upheld by both the appellate as well as the revisional courts below. Hence, the present revision petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merit. The matter has already teen delayed considerably, hence, the Id. A.C. 1st Grade, Hamirpur is directed to complete the partition proceedings without any further delay. 18. Orders 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.