JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Learned Court Guardian informs the Court that her fee stands paid to her. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 19.12.2022 (Annexture P-5), passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division at Dharamshala, H.P., in terms whereof, the revision filed by them against the order dated 06.02.2017, passed by the Collector, Kangra Sub-Division, District Kangra, H.P. has been dismissed by upholding the said order as well as the order passed by the earlier Authority. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra and submitted that the impugned order is no order in the eyes of law, as there is no reference to the grounds of revision in the order. The Divisional Commissioner has only quoted the contents of the order passed by the Collector, Kangra Sub-Division and thereafter, dismissed the revision petition by holding that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector as well as the Collector demonstrate that they had exercised the jurisdiction as per the provisions of law by passing a speaking order. They had attempted to bring a closure to the partition proceeding and ample opportunities of hearing were given to the parties by the Commissioner and therefore, as the revision was devoid of any merit, the same was dismissed. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Divisional Commissioner was bound to have had taken into consideration the grounds taken in revision and assigned some reasonings in the order as to why he was not accepting the contentions of the petitioners raised before him and was concurring with the orders passed by the earlier Authority. He stated that in light of the fact that the order is not a reasoned order at all as there is no independent judicial application of mind by the Authority concerned, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. He stated that in light of the fact that the order is not a reasoned order at all as there is no independent judicial application of mind by the Authority concerned, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 argued that in light of the fact that the Divisional Commissioner has upheld the order passed by the earlier Authorities, there was no reason to give any independent finding afresh because it is not as if he took a different view from the Authorities below and in light of the fact that he was concurring with the view taken by the Authorities below, it is settled law that such Authority need not pass a reasoned or speaking order. Accordingly, he stated that as there is no merit in the present petition, the same be dismissed. 6. Learned Court Guardian has also argued on the same lines. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the order under challenge as well as other documents on record. 8. A perusal of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner demonstrates that in his order, the Divisional Commissioner from Paras-2 to 5 of the order has quoted the contents of the orders passed by the Collector. Thereafter, in Paras-6 and 7 of the impugned order, the following has been held:- “6. The perusal of order dated 06-02-2017 of Sub Divisional Collector Kangra and order dated 26-07-2014 of Assistant Collector Grade 1st Kangra and record placed in the file shows that both authorities below have exercised jurisdiction as per provisions of law and have passed speaking order. They have attempted to bring a closure to the protracted partition proceedings. Ample opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioners by both Assistant Collector Grade 1st Kangra and Sub Division Collector Kangra. Given. 7. They have attempted to bring a closure to the protracted partition proceedings. Ample opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioners by both Assistant Collector Grade 1st Kangra and Sub Division Collector Kangra. Given. 7. Final Order;- Therefore the present revision is devoid of merit and exercising the power of Financial Commissioner (Appeals) conferred to me by Government of Himachal Pradesh vide notification No. Rev.B.A(3)3/2021-L dated 08-08-2022 under section 28 of the HIMACHAL PRADESH LAND REVENUE ACT , 1954 the instant revision petition number 107/2017 titled as Balwan Singh and others versus Muneer Mohammad and other is rejected and the order dated 06-02-2017 of Sub Division Collector Kangra, and order dated 26-07-2014 of Assistant Collector 1st Grade Kangra are up held. The record of this office be consigned to record room after its due completion.’ 9. In the considered view of this Court, the manner in which the revision petition has been decided by the Divisional Commissioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The right of Revision is a statutory right conferred upon a party and when a party invokes this statutory right, the Quasi Judicial Authority is duty bound to decide the same by applying well settled principles of deciding adversorial litigation. That is to say that the Quasi Judicial Authority is obliged to take into consideration the stands taken by the revision petitioner before it as well as the other party and thereafter, to return the findings on the contentions of the parties by referring to the order(s) under challenge before it. This is completely missing in the impugned order. Divisional Commissioner has only quoted the contents of the order passed by the Collector and has not tested the same in light of challenge made thereto raised in the revision petition. This obviously renders the impugned order to be bad in law because in the absence of assigning any reasoning in the order, which obviously is the soul of the order, the order under challenge is no order in the eyes of law. 10. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, this petition is allowed. Order dated 19.12.2022, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division at Dharamshala, H.P. (Annexture P-5) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Divisional Commissioner to decide the case afresh in accordance with law by returning a reasoned and speaking order. 11. 10. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, this petition is allowed. Order dated 19.12.2022, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division at Dharamshala, H.P. (Annexture P-5) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Divisional Commissioner to decide the case afresh in accordance with law by returning a reasoned and speaking order. 11. At this stage learned Counsel for respondent No.4 prays that the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division Dharamshala be directed to decide the proceedings expeditiously, as the partition proceedings are quite old. The parties through Counsel are directed to appear before the Divisional Commissioner Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., on 14.11.2025. In case the Office of the Divisional Commissioner does not assemble on the said date, the first available date shall be given by the Office of the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, to the parties and thereafter, the matter be taken up by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra immediately and an endeavour be made to decide the case as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 31.01.2026. 12. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.