JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —Every litigation must eventually come to an end. 2. The case has a chequered history. Respondent No.3 joined the Indian Army on 8.9.1953 and while serving in the Army, he filed a suit for recovery of Rs.200/- against the petitioners, wherein two of his brothers Amar Singh and Sahib Singh were also arrayed as parties. This suit was filed on 2.12.1977 under Section 58 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1974 for short, ''the Act''. and was ultimately decreed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) , exercising the powers of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nurpur vide its judgment and decree dated 20.11.1986 and the petitioner was not only held entitled to the arrears of land, but also held to be owner of the suit land on the basis of family partition of the entire land. 3. In the instant case, the application for resumption of land filed by respondent No.3 was rejected by the Land Reforms Officer, Jawali on the ground that he was already holding 2-24-16 hectares of land, which was in excess of limit of 02-02-00 hectares i.e. 5 acres to which he is entitled to resume as an ex-serviceman. 4. This led to filing of an appeal by respondent No.3 before the Collector/ADM, Kangra at Dharamshala, which too was dismissed vide order dated 4.6.2007. 5. Thereafter, respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division at Dharamshala, who vide his order dated 16.11.2009 allowed respondent No.3 to resume the land from each tenants up to 5 acres and the case was accordingly ordered to be decided by the Land Reforms Officer, Jawali. 6. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) , H.P., who vide his order dated 22.1.2013 affirmed the order of the Commissioner, Kangra Division and dismissed the revision petition. 7. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra and as affirmed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) , H.P. primarily on the ground that the application of respondent No.3 could not have been allowed to resume land in excess of his share, which worked out to be only 1/3rd and therefore, the orders of resumption of entire tenancy land could not have been passed. 8. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available material placed on record. 9. At the outset, it may be observed that it is rather surprising if not shocking to note that the petitioners, who are none other than the sons and wife of Milkhi Ram have not cared to make a mention of the order that was passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nurpur in civil suit instituted by respondent No.3 under Section 58 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1974, wherein respondent No.3 was held to be the absolute owner of the land in dispute on the basis of family partition. In addition thereto, the petitioners have not even assailed the aforesaid order. Once that be so, obviously the same operates the principle of res judicata inter se the parties when admittedly this order was not assailed by Milkhi Ram during his lifetime or thereafter by the present petitioners. Once respondent No.3 is absolute owner of the entire land obviously, therefore, he is entitled to resume the same from each of the tenants up to 5 acres, more particularly when his brothers Amar Singh and Sahib Singh have no share in this land. 10. Consequently, no interference is warranted in this petition against the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) , which are accordingly upheld. 11. Resultantly, this petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.