IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7263/2024 Decided on: 20.05.2026 Neelam Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Dhiraj Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.6 & 7. Ms. Manisha Thamta, Advocate for respondent No.8. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Petitioner feels aggrieved against the order dated 03.10.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, allowing the revision petition moved by respondents No.6 & 7, thereby directing the Assistant Collector First Grade to prepare a fresh mode 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of partition by setting aside the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, and the Assistant Collector First Grade. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. Petitioner filed an application on 02.06.2006 before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Bhoranj, seeking partition of the land held by her jointly along with other co-owners. The application was processed. The Assistant Collector First Grade prepared the mode of partition on 25.04.2007 and sanctioned the same on 23.06.2007. The order dated 25.04.2007 was assailed by respondents No.6 & 7 in an appeal filed under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 before the Sub Divisional Collector, primarily on the ground of breach of the principles of natural justice. The appeal was accepted on 14.07.2009. The case was remanded to the Assistant Collector First Grade, Bhoranj, for commencing the partition proceedings afresh after affording an opportunity to the appellants therein. Pursuant to the directions issued, the Assistant Collector First Grade prepared and sanctioned a fresh mode of partition on 23.07.2010. On the basis of the said mode of partition, the revenue field staff partitioned the land on the spot and submitted the partition papers to the Assistant Collector First Grade. The partition was 3 thereafter confirmed and the final order of partition was passed on 04.08.2014. Feeling aggrieved, respondents No.6 & 7 filed an appeal against the order dated 04.08.2014, which was dismissed by the Collector, Sub Division, on 28.05.2015. Respondents No.6 & 7 carried the matter further by filing a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner. To the said authority, allotment of land to respondents No.6 & 7 under the partition proceedings appeared to be fragmented. The authority noticed that the principle of consolidation of holdings had not been incorporated in the mode of partition, which though had not been challenged before any Court of law. With these observations, the revision petition was allowed on 03.10.2022 with direction to the Assistant Collector First Grade to prepare fresh mode of partition by incorporating the principle of consolidation of holdings and thereafter to proceed further in the matter. 4. The directions issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, in the impugned order dated 03.10.2022 are not in consonance with law. The mode of partition sanctioned on 23.06.2007 was assailed by respondents No.6 & 7 in Case No.29/2008 before the Collector, Sub Division, Bhoranj. The said appeal was allowed on 14.07.2009 on ground of denial of opportunity while preparing the mode of partition. Vide order dated 14.07.2009, the case was remanded to the Assistant Collector First Grade with directions to commence the partition proceedings afresh after 4 affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. Pursuant thereto, a fresh mode of partition was prepared on 23.07.2010. It is a matter of record, and not disputed by learned counsel appearing for respondents No.6, 7 & 8, that the mode of partition dated 23.07.2010/26.10.2010 has attained finality and stands accepted by all the parties. It was not even under challenge before the Divisional Commissioner. Learned counsel for respondents No.6 & 7 submitted that the only objection raised by these respondents before the Collector, Sub Division as also the Divisional Commissioner, was with regard to the partition having not been carried out on the spot in the year 2014 in accordance with the accepted mode of partition. Given this admitted position, there was no occasion for the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, to direct preparation of a fresh mode of partition, when the same had already become final and accepted by the parties. Hence, to that extent, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, deserves to be set aside. In view of above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.10.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, is set aside to the extent it directs the Assistant Collector First Grade to prepare fresh mode of partition. However, keeping in view the factual observations made in the impugned order, the parties are directed to appear through their learned counsel before the Assistant Collector First Grade on 5 10.06.2026, who shall undertake the exercise of verifying as to whether the partition papers/partition carried out on spot was in consonance with law and in conformity with the mode of partition dated 23.07.2010/26.10.2010. The legal consequences shall follow accordingly. The instant petition to stand disposed of in above terms. All pending miscellaneous application(s) to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 20th May, 2026(rohit)