Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1113 (PNJ)

Jeeto v. Amar Kaur

2004-09-29

A.K.DUBEY

body2004
ORDER A.K. Dubey, F.C. - This revision petition has been filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 10.9.2003 of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar with respect to sanction of mutation No. 417 of village Chahar Majra, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr. 2. Brief facts of the case are that mutation No. 417 of village Chahar Majra, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr pertains to the estate of Inder of village Chahar Majra who died on 31.10.1971. Inder had two sons namely Sadhu Ram and Lehmbr Ram who expired in 1999 and 1996 respectively. Petitioner No. 1 Jeeto is the daughter of Inder. Assistant Collector Ist Grade sanctioned the mutation No. 417 which was entered on 9.4.2002 i.e. nearly 30 years after the death of Inder on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 14.10.1971. The mutation had been made by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide his order dated 9.4.2002 in favour of Sadhu Ram and Lehmbr Ram both sons of Inder in equal shares. This order was challenged by Smt. Jeeto daughter of Inder along with others in appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Nawanshahr who dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 28.11.2002. This order was challenged in the revision petition before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who dismissed the revision petition vide his orders dated 10.9.2003. The present revision petition has been filed against the aforementioned order dated 10.9.2003 of Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. 3. Notice of the present petition was sent to the respondent who appeared through counsel. Arguments were heard on 16.8.2004. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners pleaded that un-registered Will on the basis of which mutation was sanctioned is a suspicious document because the property as per this Will has been distributed adverse to the claims of class-I natural heirs of deceased. Moreover, the property in the two villages namely Salimpur Chahar Majra has been distributed in different manner. It is relevant to mention that the revenue authorities had earlier sanctioned mutation No. 260 of village Salimpur on the basis of unregistered Will dated 14.10.1971. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that suspicion had been created because the respondents were silent for 25 years and thereafter have moved to get the mutation sanctioned in respect of land at Chahar Majra. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that suspicion had been created because the respondents were silent for 25 years and thereafter have moved to get the mutation sanctioned in respect of land at Chahar Majra. Moreover, the original Will has not been produced before the revenue authorities in the present mutation and only a photo copy has been produced. It was further mentioned on behalf of the revision petitioners that the original Will have not been located though it was stated to have been attached with the mutation papers of village Salimpur and only a certified photo copy of the entry in the register of deed writer regarding inclusion of the said Will has been prepared by the first party. Above all, it was mentioned that since a civil suit regarding Will is pending with respect to Salimpur mutation, therefore, mutation should not have been sanctioned. 5. In reply, the learned counsel for respondents urged that it was wrongly mentioned by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the pending civil suit is only in respect of Salimpur village. In fact, it relates to both the lands at village Salimpur and Chahar Majra and to support this contention, he produced the photo copy of the order dated 23.10.2001 passed by the civil court in which the land relating to both the villages have been mentioned. This was not refuted by the petitioner. The counsel for respondents drew the attention to the order dated 9.4.2002 passed by Collector Ist Grade-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nawanshahr wherein it has been mentioned that, "I have also examined the order dated 17.1.1973 which had been passed earlier by the A.C. Ist Grade Nawanshahr on mutation No. 631 of village Salimpur. The contents of the Will Mark P reveal that Inder deceased owned property in two villages viz. Salimpur and Chahar Majra. The property of village Salimpur was bequeathed by the deceased in favour of his son Sadhu Ram only, on the ground that the said property had been purchased against the money by Sadhu Ram, whereas the property of village Chahar Majra was given to both the sons Sadhu Ram and Lehmbar Ram. Salimpur and Chahar Majra. The property of village Salimpur was bequeathed by the deceased in favour of his son Sadhu Ram only, on the ground that the said property had been purchased against the money by Sadhu Ram, whereas the property of village Chahar Majra was given to both the sons Sadhu Ram and Lehmbar Ram. It will be seen that during proceedings on mutation No. 631 of village Salimpur, Smt. Jeeto and Lehmbar Ram had appeared before the A.C. Ist Grade and raised objection against the validity of the Will 14.10.1971 but later on they absented, with the result that ex-parte proceedings were taken against them by the Court". It was contended on behalf of respondents that this order dated 17.1.1973 was not challenged by Jeeto, the present revision petitioner by way of appeal particularly if they were aggrieved by the aforesaid order or they had any thing to say against the validity of the Will dated 14.10.1971. The mere fact that a suit is pending between the parties concerning the property of village Salimpur, is no ground to with-hold the finalization of these mutation proceedings. The learned counsel for respondents stated that both the Collector and Commissioner have rightly concluded that the revision petitioner is indulging in frivolous litigation and therefore, had rightly dismissed the appeal/revision petition. Moreover, since civil suit is pending, therefore, the decision in the civil suit should be awaited before effecting any further change. 6. I have considered the arguments presented by both the parties and the record. Regarding the contention of the counsel for revision petitioner that the property has been distributed in different manner, it may be mentioned that the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar has stated in his order that "This Will (unregistered) dated 14.10.1971 clearly mentions that the deceased had bequeathed the property of village Salimpur in favour of Sadhu Ram as he had spent the money in its purchase while the property of Village Chahar Mazra was bequeathed in favour of both the sons". Besides this, as has been rightly mentioned by the counsel for the respondents and the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order that "sanctioning of mutation No. 631 of village Salimpur had not been challenged either by Jeeto or deceased Lehmbar Ram till its death or a period of nearly 25 years. Besides this, as has been rightly mentioned by the counsel for the respondents and the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order that "sanctioning of mutation No. 631 of village Salimpur had not been challenged either by Jeeto or deceased Lehmbar Ram till its death or a period of nearly 25 years. Hence the contents of Will had to be treated as final qua the LRs of Inder on the basis of sanctioning of mutation No. 631." Further, it has been rightly concluded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that "once a Will had been taken to be proven by the Revenue Authorities in one village, it cannot be treated as unproved in another village, therefore, the mutation No. 417 of village Chahar Mazra has to be decided on the basis of unregistered Will dated 14.10.1971." 7. It was contended by the Ld. counsel for the petitioners that this mutation could not have been sanctioned after such a long delay on the basis of unregistered WILL dated 14.10.1971. He referred to 1997(1) PLJ 547 and stated that on the basis of registered sale deed more than 15 years old, such registered document, cannot be given effect in the revenue record by the revenue officer and it is only the civil court competent to adjudicate such an intricate question. He also referred to 1991 PLJ 261 and 1985 PLJ 5 wherein it has been laid down that revenue authorities are not competent to give effect in the revenue record in respect of the mutation after lapse of more than 20 years. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) viz. "All the citations quoted by the counsel for the petitioners would have been applicable in case the unregistered WILL dated 14.10.1971 would not have been produced before the Revenue Authorities in regard to the entire revenue estate left by the Inder Singh deceased. But in this case WILL had been produced and the mutation No. 631 of village Salimpur had been properly sanctioned in 1973 and this had been in the knowledge of Smt. Jeeto as well as Lehmbar Ram deceased." 8. Keeping in view the above mentioned conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals), it has to be concluded that both the Collector and Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly rejected the appeal and revision petition and upheld the mutation order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Nawanshahr dated 28.11.2002. Keeping in view the above mentioned conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals), it has to be concluded that both the Collector and Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly rejected the appeal and revision petition and upheld the mutation order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Nawanshahr dated 28.11.2002. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Order reserved on 16.8.2004 is dictated and signed today. Parties be informed. Announced. Revision dismissed.