Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 216 (PNJ)

Vinod Kumar v. Manakshi Vaid

2002-02-18

J.S.KESAR

body2002
ORDER J.S. Kesar, FC. - This revision petition is filed against the order dated 20.8.1999 of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, vide which revision petition of the petitioner against the order of Collector, Bhulath dated 21.4.1998 has been dismissed. Vide his order dated 21.4.1998, the Collector had remanded the case to A.C. Grade-Ist for deciding the mutation afresh. This order was passed keeping in view the fact that in case of unregistered will it is the A.C. Grade-I who has jurisdiction to sanction the mutation and not A.C. Grade-II. 2. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the effect of the mutation sanctioned by A.C. Grade-II vide order dated 27.5.1997 has since been incorporated in the Jamabandi. Hence, the Revenue Court does not have jurisdiction to interfere with the revenue record which has attained finality. Another issue has been raised regarding the authority of the respondents to contest this case because of invalid General Power of Attorney. 3. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that Smt. Kirshan Kumari died on 12.12.1994. Unregistered will is alleged to have been executed on 15.9.1994 about three month before her death. However, it was presented for implementation only on 27.5.1997. He has further pointed out that as per the record, the entries have been incorporated in the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95. Not only this, it has been pointed out that the mutation was entered on 27.5.1997 and A.C. Grade-II sanctioned the mutation on the same day. The counsel went on to say that the entire procedure is shrouded under suspicious circumstances. The mutation has been sanctioned in undue haste which has not been explained. Moreover, the will has been presented before the Revenue Authority after a period of more than two years from the death which itself casts a shadow of doubt on the documents. The collector for these reasons has remanded the case for afresh decision at the competent level after considering all the relevant factors. 4. I have considered the arguments of the learned Counsels and gone through the record. It is strange that the order dated 27.5.1997 has been given effect to in the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95. The next Jamabandi has not been put on record. It is doubtful whether these entries have been carried out in the next Jamabandies. 4. I have considered the arguments of the learned Counsels and gone through the record. It is strange that the order dated 27.5.1997 has been given effect to in the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95. The next Jamabandi has not been put on record. It is doubtful whether these entries have been carried out in the next Jamabandies. The fact that the mutation is sanctioned and entered on the same day without specifically marking the presence of the respondents is un-explainable. No reasons have been given as to why the petitioners should take mere than two years to present the will when it was in their possession. 5. The learned Counsel has cited 1982 PLJ 396, Babu Singh and othersv. Ram Partap Singh and others; 1982 PLJ 397, Banwari v. Degh Ram and others; 1995 PLJ 506, Lehna Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others; 1987 PLJ 418, Dalip Singh v. Sudagar Singh. In all these cases it has been held that once the entries stand incorporated in jamabandi, the Revenue Officers do not have jurisdiction. However, entries in these cases are different. It is an admitted fact that the genuine and correct entries in the jamabandies has attained finality. However, entries incorporated under suspicious circumstances and not standing to reasonable logic are not covered under these rulings and no court can defend the wrong, suspicious and fraudulent entries. There is no explanation how the entries for mutation sanctioned on 27.5.1997 find mention in the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95. Not only this, the authority sanctioning the mutation also suffers from inherent jurisdiction. 6. In view of the above facts, I am of the view that the Collector did the right thing to remand the case to the A.C. Ist to decide it afresh after giving due opportunity to the concerned parties. There is no infirmity attached to the order of the Commissioner dismissing the revision against the order of the Collector. Accordingly revision petition is dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before A.C. Ist, Bhulath on the 20th of March, 2002. 6. Before I part with this order, I would like to direct Collector to get a thorough probe conducted as to how the mutation was entered and sanctioned on the same day and the circumstances in which the order dated 27.5.1997 has found mention in the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95. 6. Before I part with this order, I would like to direct Collector to get a thorough probe conducted as to how the mutation was entered and sanctioned on the same day and the circumstances in which the order dated 27.5.1997 has found mention in the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95. The official(s) found guilty of deliberate attempt to manipulate and fabricate the record, should be sternly dealt with under the Rules. Announced. Petition dismissed.