IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 1224 of 2001 & CWP No. 268 of 2002 Date of decision: 18.11.2010 In both the petitions. Om Prakash and another … Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. In both the petitions. For the petitioners: Mr. Himmat Negi vice Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 to 4: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. For the respondents No. 5 & 6: Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. These two petitions are being disposed of by a common judgement since they arise out of the same order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in Revenue Appeal Nos. 27 of 1999 & 28 of 1999. 2. The undisputed facts are that five applications by different co-sharers were filed on 26.10.1993 before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Amb, for possession of the joint land comprised in various Khewats and Khasra 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 numbers. Mode of partition was prepared and initially according to this mode of partition the possession of the parties on the basis of compromise dated 25.12.1975 would be respected and partition made on this basis. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers objected to this clause-1 of the mode of partition. The Assistant Collector thereafter modified clause -1 and directed that partition be done khewat wise keeping in view the possession. The private respondents herein filed two appeals before the Collector, who vide order dated 29.1.1997 came to the conclusion that the compromise dated 25.12.1975 had been upheld by the Civil Court and therefore, the possession of the parties in terms of the compromise had to be maintained and therefore, partition could not be done khewat wise which would result in fragmentation of the plots and would scatter the holdings and cause inconvenience to the parties. 3. The Divisional Commissioner in the appeal filed by the present petitioners upset 3 the order of the Collector and upheld the modified mode of partition. The respondents filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), who came to the conclusion that the revenue estate in which the land, which is the subject matter of partition proceedings is situate is one estate though the said estate had been split into sub-estates during settlement operations. However, the revenue estate remains the same and therefore, came to the conclusion that the entire land should be treated as one block for the purpose of partition and therefore, partition is not required to be done Khewat wise since that would result in fragmentation of holdings and would also upset the settled position of the parties. Against this order, the present petitions have been filed. 4. Undisputed facts are that a compromise was entered into between the parties on 25.12.1975 and this compromise was accepted by the Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 4 133 of 1989 decided on 26.12.1992. Once the parties had agreed that they are in possession in terms of the compromise and the land which is subject matter of partition is situate in one estate then it is more than obvious that the possession of the parties had to be given primacy and should have been respected while ordering the partition. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order of the financial commissioner and both the writ petitions are accordingly rejected. No costs. 18th November, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.