Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2578 (PNJ)

Gurpreet Singh v. Gurdev Kaur

2006-07-06

GEETIKA KALHA

body2006
ORDER Geetika Kalha, F.C. - The present is a revision petition filed under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 17.9.2002 passed by the Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, and order dated 16.12.2002 passed by the Collector, Phillaur, regarding sanctioning of the mutation No. 10545 of village Dosanjh Kalan, pertaining to inheritance of deceased Charan Singh. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, one Chanan Singh of village Dosanjh Kalan, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar died on 7.11.2000 and mutation of his inheritance was entered on 8.11.2000 in favour of his five daughters, in equal share, on the basis of natural succession and the AC-2nd Grade, Phillaur, sanctioned mutation on 16.11.2000. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed an appeal before Collector, Phillaur, on the ground that the mutation be sanctioned on the basis of registered Will dated 11.9.2000 executed by Chanan Singh in favour of the petitioners. The Collector, Phillaur, accepted the appeal vide his order dated 11.9.2000 in favour of three petitioners. Not satisfied with the order of Collector, Phillaur, respondents filed an appeal before Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and the Commissioner vide his order dated 23.1.2002 accepted the appeal and set aside the order dated 26.6.2001 passed by the Collector, Phillaur, and remanded the case back to Collector, Phillaur, with the direction that the Collector should decide the case afresh after hearing both the parties. 3. After remand the Collector, Phillaur, vide his order dated 16.12.2002 sanctioned mutation in favour of respondents on the basis of naturalsuccession by ignoring registered Will. The petitioners challenged this order before Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, by way of revision petition, on the ground that the mutation be sanctioned in their favour on the basis of registered Will, which had wrongly been ignored by Collector, Phillaur. But the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 17.9.2003 dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order dated 16.12.2002 passed by Collector, Phillaur. Still aggrieved by this order dated 17.9.2002 the petitioners have filed the present revision petition on the grounds stated therein. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record minutely. Still aggrieved by this order dated 17.9.2002 the petitioners have filed the present revision petition on the grounds stated therein. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record minutely. The counsel for petitioners has submitted that Chanan Singh was residing with the family of the petitioners and because of love and affection and service rendered he executed a registered Will dated 11.9.2000 in favour of petitioners; that the name of Chanan Singh was also recorded in Ration Card along with the name of the petitioners and members of their family and in the voter list of 1999 of Village Dosanjh Kalan name of Chanan Singh was mentioned at serial No. 291-93; that Pritam Das, lambardar of Village Dosanjh Kalan had appeared before the Collector, Phillaur, and made a statement that Chanan Singh had executed the Will in favour of the petitioners and he was the attesting witness to the Will; that the statement of Mohinder Singh, Document Writer was also recorded, which also proved the due execution of the Will; that on the basis of registered Will the revenue authorities were duty bound to sanction mutation and the revenue authorities could not go into intricate questions of fact and law. While submitting his arguments, the counsel for petitioner relied upon judgment of Honble Supreme Court reported as 2004(1) RCR(Civil) 825 to the effect that the law require only one of the attesting witnesses to be examined to prove the due execution of the Will and examining the second attesting witness is not necessary. The Ld. counsel for petitioner has further submitted that the mutation proceedings being summary in nature, the revenue authorities are not required to go into the intricate question of fact and law and revenue authorities should give affect to a registered document and in support of this contention he relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court 1993(3) RRR 174. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents has failed to bring any material to the notice of the Court to controvert the aforesaid submission made by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and has not been able to cite any contrary judgment. The solitary argument of the Ld. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents has failed to bring any material to the notice of the Court to controvert the aforesaid submission made by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and has not been able to cite any contrary judgment. The solitary argument of the Ld. Counsel for the respondents that the Will is shrouded by the suspicious circumstances due to non-examining of second marginal witness and the other marginal witness, lambardar was of a different Patti, is wholly without merit in-view of the law settled by Honble Supreme Court as well Honble High Court. Thus I am of the view that the Courts below have committed a gross illegality while discarding the registered document execution of which has been duly proved as required under the law, by the lambardar of the same village. The counsel for the respondent also submitted that executor of the Will used to sign the documents, whereas, there was a thumb impression on the registered Will and this creates suspicion. On the other hand the counsel for the petitioners rebutted this argument and has produced on record documentary evidence to show that Chanan Singh had used to put thumb impression too. The counsel for respondent has also averred that the Will has been executed in favour of minors who had not rendered any service to the deceased and no reasons have been given as to why all the daughters were ignored. The counsel of the petitioner has submitted that Chanan Singh was residing with the family of the petitioners and because of love and affection and service rendered to Chanan Singh, he executed a registered Will in favour of petitioners. I agree with this argument and that is why the name of Chanan Singh figured in the Ration Card along with the name of petitioners and their family members. Also, after the death of Chanan Singh the family of petitioners performed his last rites. 6. In view of the above, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside and tehsildar, Phillaur is directed to sanction mutation in favour of a petitioners on the basis of registered Will dated 11.9.2000. Announced. Petition allowed.