Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1404 (PNJ)

Kulwant Singh v. Jaswinder Singh

2007-07-26

ROMILA DUBEY

body2007
ORDER Smt. Romila Dubey, F.C. - This revision petition is under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 against the order dated 28.10.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. 2. The brief facts of this case are that Kartar Kaur wd/o Bishan Singh died on 25.12.96 leaving behind Sukhpal Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Kulwant Singh sons. Her daughter Kulwant Kaur predeceased her leaving behind Naveen Singh son and Binder Kaur daughter. Mutation No. 15030 of village Sultanwind sub-urban Amritsar, relating to inheritance of Kartar Kaur was entered by the Patwari circle and the same was sanctioned by the A.C.II, Amritsar-I, on the basis of natural succession in favour of all the legal heirs, vide order dated 8.7.97. Jaswinder Singh, respondent No. 1 S/o Sukhpal Singh s/o Kartar Kaur, filed an appeal before the SDM-cum-Collector. Amritsar-I, pleading that the deceased had executed a registered Will dated 25.1.95 in his favour, but lower court has not given any opportunity to produce the same. The Collector, accepted the appeal, declared the mutation contested and remanded the case to A.C.I vide order dated 6.3.98. On remand, the A.C.I (SDM) after hearing the parties and going through the record, discarded the Will and sanctioned the mutation in favour of all the legal heirs on the basis of natural succession, vide order dated 2.11.99. 3. The respondent Jaswinder Singh filed an appeal before the Collector, Amritsar, pleading that Will was a registered document and has been proved. The Collector observed that civil litigation regarding genuineness of the Will was pending in the civil court and the party in whose favour the decision will be announced will be at liberty to get the findings of the civil court implemented in the revenue record. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed vide dated 3.9.2001. 4. Aggrieved Jaswinder Singh filed revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division Jalandhar, who accepted the revision petition, set aside the order of lower courts and remanded the case to SDM-cum-A.C.I, for fresh decision after giving full opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence de novo and then pass a speaking order, vide order dated 28.10.2003. Hence the revision petition. 5. Hence the revision petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioner assailed the order of Commissioner inter alia on the grounds that the Commissioner has ignored the law that when the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, Revenue Officers are to ignore the Will, whether it is registered or unregistered and the mutation is to be sanctioned on the basis of natural succession in favour of all the legal heirs. Further there is no justification to produce the evidence de novo as ordered by the Commissioner after remanding the case to A.C.I. The counsel averred that no reason is given by the Commissioner producing evidence de novo. The counsel further averred that the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances as held in the orders of A.C.I and the Collector. In his support the counsel cited judgment given in Maghar Singh v. Bachan Kaur, 1997(2) PLJ 65, Sukhmander Kaur v. Gurlabh Singh, 1997(2) PLJ 368 and Harbans Kaur v. Wassan Singh, 1997(1) PLJ 47. 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondents argued that the order of the Commissioner is well reasoned and no injustice is being done to the petitioner because he is to be given full opportunity to produce his evidence before the SDM-cum-A.C.I as ordered by the Commissioner in the impugned orders. 7. I have heard the arguments put forth by both the counsel and carefully gone through the record of the case and orders of the lower courts. The A.C.I and Collector have given detailed reasoning in their orders that the Will dated 25.1.95 propounded by Jaswinder Singh respondent No. 1 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It is settled law that the Revenue Officers are not to go into the intricate question of law regarding validity of Will which can be proved only in the civil court. It is settled law that the Will surrounded by the suspicious circumstances is to be ignored while sanctioning the mutation of inheritance. Moreover as mentioned in the orders of Collector civil litigation regarding genuineness of the Will is pending in the civil court. The Collector has rightly observed that after the decision of the civil court, the party concerned, in whose favour the decision of the civil court will be announced, will be at liberty to get the findings of the civil court implemented in the revenue record. The Collector has rightly observed that after the decision of the civil court, the party concerned, in whose favour the decision of the civil court will be announced, will be at liberty to get the findings of the civil court implemented in the revenue record. Thus there is no justification for remanding the case to ACI for de novo evidence. The revision petition is therefore accepted and the orders dated 28.10.2003 of the Commissioner are set aside and orders dated 30.9.2001 of Collector and orders dated 2.11.1999 of ACI are upheld. Announced. Petition allowed.