IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.1141 of 2006. Date of decision: 22.04.2010. Simarata Devi & another ….Petitioners Versus Financial Commissioner Revenue & Others ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: M/s.Rajnish Maniktala and Neeraj Maniktala, Advocates. For Respondent No.1: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For Respondents 2 to 6: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioners challenge the order of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Annexure P-13, dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioners against the order of the Collector, Sub Division, Palampur, dated 30.6.2004. 2. It was urged before the Commissioner that the respondents had preferred an application for partition of their joint land in Mohal Gadiara, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, before the Assistant Collector Ist 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 Grade, Palampur, who had devised a mode of partition on 12.12.2001. On 2.6.2003 the respondents preferred an application before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Palampur, stating that land comprised in Khasra Nos.888 & 889, measuring 0-21-88 Hectares situated alongwith Thakurdwara-Palampur Road may be partitioned. On 20.6.2003, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade purportedly made necessary corrections in clause-5 of the mode of partition which was settled on 12.12.2001. This order was challenged in appeal before the Collector, Sub Division, Palampur, on the ground that there had been a change in the mode of partition which is illegal and that Khasra Nos.888 and 889 had been constructed upon by the petitioners by spending huge amount of money. The Collector vide his order dated 30.6.2004 held that the correction carried out in the mode of partition has not violated any law, but is only an error which has been rectified. The present petitioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner who called for the record and after scrutinizing it did not find any illegality. The revision petition was dismissed holding that there was no change in the mode of partition. The petitioners now challenge the order of the Financial Commissioner as being illegal and against law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Khasra Nos.888 and 889 incorporated as Item No.5 in the mode of partition is an interpolation and cannot 3 be implemented. The mode of partition already having been settled and finalized it was not open to the any revenue authority to have changed it. 4. The Collector vide his order Annexure P-12 notes that when the mode of partition was framed on 12.12.2001, appellant Simirta Devi was present before the Court and Item No.5 was incorporated and part of the proceedings. This order settling partition was passed in the presence of all the parties and in the order dated 20.6.2003, which was challenged in appeal; there was no change in the mode of partition. That order reads:- “20.6.03 Pukara gaya. Counsel Saiel va pratibadi hajar hain. Tarika taksim dinak 12.12.01 jo ki A.C.IInd Grade Palampur dwara tajbiz kiya gaya hai tatha jiski prati is karyala ke kram 343, dinak 16.3.02 ke dwara girdavar halqua ko bheji gai hai. Tarika taksim ke kkram No.5 ki line galti se na likhi gai hai. Jiski counsel drusti bar counsel freekain ne prathna patra gujara hai. Prathna patra par gaur ki gai. Atah ab punah tarika taksim ki sansodhit prti girdavar halqua kio bheji jakar misel 21.8.03 koi pesh hove.” “20-6-03 Case called Counsel Applicant Respondent present mode of partition 4 which has been devised on 12.12.01 by A.C 2nd Grade and a copy of which has been sent to Girdawar Halqua vide Sr.No.393 Dated 16.03.02, line No.5 of mode of partition has not been written by mistake. An Application for correction has been moved by Counsels of parties. Hence an amended copy of mode of partition be sent to Girdawar Halqua and file be placed on 21.8.03”. 5. In-fact, what the officer records is that Item No.5 of the order could not be incorporated in the communication sent to the Girdavar Halqua and as such the order of partition in its totality has not been conveyed to the revenue officer. This order was passed in the presence of both the parties. The order was a sequel to an application for correction though described as a review to the mode of partition dated 2.6.2006. Although the application is titled as a review petition, but the order passed shows that it is not a review, but only a correction of the mistake of not conveying the entire contents of the order of the settled mode of partition. It is trite to observe that correction can be made in a communication conveying the order if the original order in its entirety has not been conveyed to the agency/authority, which has to execute it. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is not the situation in the present case. He has in particular referred to Annexure P-15 5 where according to him Item No.5 has been interpolated. I cannot accept this submission as it is not apparent from the reading of this order which is a photocopy. The copy is a certified photocopy of the order. If this contention is accepted, it is of a serious nature and requires a high degree of proof. What Annexure P-6, communicates to the Girdavar is only a part of this order and the entire order dated 12.12.2001. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance on Section 16 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act to urge that no review is permissible. I need not turn to that provision of the Act because from the record it is apparent and evident that it is not a review of the order. The complete order is Annexure P-15. What is conveyed is Annexure P-6 which is not the full text of the order. No application was required but the original order could have been communicated suo motu by the Collector. 7. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. On the question as to whether the order has been tampered with, I have already observed that these allegations are of a serious nature and I do not find any evidence on the record to substantiate these allegations. April 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.