IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14207 of 2026 Decided on: 19.08.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kewal Krishan & Ors …..Petitioners Versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals) & Ors. ....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Shekhar Badola, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Nemo for respondent No.5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh, dismissed the Revision Petition preferred by the petitioners on 10.06.2024 and thereby affirmed the concurrent orders passed by all the Revenue Authorities below. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court . 2. Heard and considered the case file. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2(i) Respondents No. 5 and 6 moved an application for partition on 08.09.1994 under Section 123 of the HP Land Revenue Act, 1954 before the Assistant Collector First Grade, Hamirpur seeking partition of land held jointly by the parties in Up Mohal Goura, Mouza Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur. Mode of partition was formulated on 02.02.1995. 2(ii) The order dated 2.2.1995 was challenged by the petitioners before Collector Sub Division Hamirpur. Petitioners’ appeal was accepted on 30.07.1997. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector First Grade, Hamirpur with direction to provide due opportunity to petitioner No.1 while sanctioning the mode of partition. On remand of the case, Assistant Collector First Grade, Hamirpur processed the partition application again and mode of partition was devised afresh on 21.08.2004. The same was sent to the concerned Field Revenue Agencies for its implementation on spot. 2(iii) The petitioners challenged the fresh mode of partition as well. The order dated 21.08.2004 was assailed before the Collector, Sub Division Hamirpur. Petitioners’ appeal was dismissed in default on 11.09.2006. The order 3 dated 11.09.2006, attained finality. Subsequent thereto, the Assistant Collector First Grade, Hamirpur finalized the partition vide order dated 18.03.2008. 2(iv) Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 18.03.2008, whereby the partition proceedings were finalized, petitioners preferred appeal before the Collector, Sub Division Hamirpur. The appeal was accepted and the matter was again remanded to the Assistant Collector First Grade, Hamirpur with direction that proceedings subsequent to the mode of partition dated 21.08.2004 be carried out again by involving all interested parties. On remand of the case again, the Assistant Collector First Grade, Hamirpur visited the spot on 07.12.2010 in order to resolve the objections raised by the parties. The order was passed by him on 23.12.2010 that objections raised by the present petitioners were against the factual position. The partition already approved on 18.03.2008 was again accepted and was ordered to be implemented as per law. 2(v) Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 23.12.2010, the petitioners instituted appeal before the Collector Sub Division Hamirpur. Appeal was dismissed on 4 12.12.2011. Petitioners’ Revision Petition against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner on 13.01.2015. Petitioner's second Revision Petition was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (appeals) Himachal Pradesh on 10.06.2024. Feeling aggrieved, this writ petition has been instituted in December 2024. The objections raised therein were removed almost a year and half later. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not urge anything new which had not been considered in the impugned order. The specific issue that was highlighted during hearing of the case pertains to ‘Fard Kabza’. The objection raised by learned counsel for the petitioners about there being no ‘Fard Kabza’ having been prepared before finalizing the mode of partition, was justly rejected. In the given facts, such objection could not have been raised after the finality got attached to the mode of partition as ‘Fard Kabza’ (list of possession) is prepared before framing of mode of partition. Further objection of the petitioners that their settled possession over the joint holding had been disturbed is also irrelevant. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) 5 Himachal Pradesh, has justly concluded that in joint holding possession of one co-sharer is possession of all. The land has to be partitioned in accordance with mode of partition that has attained finality. No specific ground was urged warranting interference. In the given facts and circumstances, the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh has rightly observed that the petitioners have been dragging the partition litigation ever since 1995 by irrelevantly resisting every stage of the partition proceeding. In view of above, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned orders concurrently passed by the Revenue Authorities. There is no merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 19, 2026 Judge R.Atal