JUDGMENT S S. Sidhu, I. A. S.—This is a reference made by the learned Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi wherein he has recommended remanding of this case to the Assistant Collector. 2. The brief facts leading to the present revision petition are that after the death of Shri Atma Ram, his wife Shrimati Majhari inherited property vide mutation No 43 attested on 24-8-1986 by Asstt. Collector, and Grade, Mandi Sadar The petitioners filed an appeal against this order before the learned Collector, Sub-Division, Mandi Sadar who dismissed the same vide his order dated 9-1-1991. Feeling dissatisfied by the order of the Revenue Officers below, the petitioners filed a Revision Petition before the Commissioner, Mandi Division who has recommended the same to this Court vide his Order dated 3-1-1992. The learned Commissioner has recommended that the case be remanded to Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Madi for referring the matter to Land Reforms Officer and to decide the mutation of inheritence after the decision of the Land Reforms Officer about tenancy. 3. We heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties on 5-3-1993. The perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners contested the mutation on the plea that they were the tenants under Atma Ram deceased and had become owners of the land under the provision of the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, They also pleaded that they had not been afforded any opportunity of being heard Another plea taken by them was that Shrimati Majhari is not the widow of Shri Atma Ram. The perusal of the record would show that the mutation was attested in full view of the general public and Smt. Majhari was duly identified by Shri Mohan Lal Panch. There is nothing on record to show that any report was made by the petitioner regarding the death of Shri Atma Ram. There is also nothing on record to prove that Shri Kundan, father of the petitioners was inducted as a tenant by Shri Atma Ram deceased. Shri Atma Ram died issueless living behind Shrimati Majhari as widow and as per Hindu Succession Act, she has become full owner. Moreover, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Collector was barred by limitation and deserved to be dismissed on that score alone. Shri Atma Ram died issueless living behind Shrimati Majhari as widow and as per Hindu Succession Act, she has become full owner. Moreover, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Collector was barred by limitation and deserved to be dismissed on that score alone. It is a settled law that the mutation proceedings are summary in nature and intricate questions of law cannot be decided by the Revenue Officer while attesting mutation. The Assistant Collector, IInd Grade was not competent to decide the issue of tenancy. The petitioners also failed to produce any proof to the effect that Shrimati Majhari was divorced by Shri Atma Ram before his death. The Assistant Collector could not have provided any opportunity to the petitioners as there was no record before him to show that they were interested parties. The names of the petitioners neither figured in the revenue record nor they had made any report to the concerned Patwari after he death of Shri Atma Ram. 4. In view of the position stated above, we find no reason to interfere with the order dated 24-8-1986 of Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Mandi as passed in mutation No 43 of Muhal Jabral. In other words, we IInd ourselves unable to accept the recommendations made by the learned Commissioner, Mandi Division in his order dated 3-1-1992 passed in Revenue Revision No. 52/91. To be communicated Revision fails.