ORDER 1. This is a revision petition under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against the order dated 27.9.2006 passed by Ld. Commissioner, Rohtak Division by which the order dated 25.10.2005 of the Collector, Rohtak and order dated 31.3.2003 of A.C. Ist Grade were confirmed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Rohtak sent the contested mutation No.1776 of village Sangahera to Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rohtak for decision. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rohtak decided the contested mutation No.1776 on 31.3.2003 and ordered to sanction the said mutation on the basis of inheritance of the deceased Sh. Munshi Ram instead on the basis of the unregistered will dated 29.12.2000 in favour of Om Parkash S/o Sh. Jai Chand, the petitioner. Sh. Munshi Ram died issueless and the petitioner claimed the execution of the will dated 29.12.2000 in favour of the petitioners. The petitioner filed an appeal before Collector Rohtak against the orders; dated 31.3.2003 of Assistant Collector and Collector, Rohtak dismissed vide his orders dated 25.10.2005. The petitioner filed revision petition against the order of Collector, Rohtak before Ld. Commissioner, Rohtak Division, who dismissed the same vide his orders dated 27.9.2006. Hence, the petitioner, Om Parkash filed the present petition. 3. During the course of arguments, Ld. counsel for the petitioner stated that the Revenue court could not decide on the genuineness of the will executed. Only the civil court has powers to decide on whether the will is forged or fabricated. The will dated 29.12.2000 has never been challenged by the respondent in the civil court. The will dated 29.12.2000 executed in favour of the petitioners is genuine. The will requires no registration and unregistered will must have been acted upon by the lower courts. He has further argued that If some paper in the relevant register of the deed writer are lying blank, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for that. 4. On the other hand, Id. counsel for the respondent has stated that the burden to prove the will in question is on the petitioner, who has miserably failed to prove the same. He further stated that the mutation in question has rightly been sanctioned in favour of all the legal heirs of deceased Sh. Munshi Ram and, therefore, the revision petition be dismissed. counsel for the respondent has stated that the burden to prove the will in question is on the petitioner, who has miserably failed to prove the same. He further stated that the mutation in question has rightly been sanctioned in favour of all the legal heirs of deceased Sh. Munshi Ram and, therefore, the revision petition be dismissed. The Collector Rohtak vide his order dated 25.10.2005 has rightly observed against the character of deed writer. 5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the documents available on file. The courts below have pointed out the inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses produced by the petitioners for proving the will in question. The blank pages in the relevant register produced by the deed writer is a material irregularity. On account of inconsistencies in the statements coupled with blank pages in the relevant register, the courts below have rightly expressed doubt about genuineness of the will. Mutation proceedings are of a summary character and a Revenue Officer dealing with a mutation is not supposed to take cognizance of intricate questions of law and fact. It is well established principle of law that where there is a slightest doubt about the genuineness of will, the Revenue Officer should ignore it. Leaving the party, claiming on the basis of the will to get a decision from the court of competent jurisdiction. In such circumstances the Revenue Officer should sanction the mutation according to inheritance. Therefore, I do not find any justification for interfering with the orders passed by the courts below. The petition is dismissed. To be communicated. ------------------