ORDER Sh. P. MITRA., IAS - This revision petition is directed against the order of the deputy commissioner hamirpur district exercising the powers of commissioner passed in case no 94/2000 dated 6.8.2002 whereby the revision petition of the present petitioner was dismissed 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Shri Jai Chand son of Shri Duni Chand, resident of Burnwar, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil & Distt. Hamirpur was reported to be unheard of and his whereabouts not known to his near and dear ones for the last 50 year and therefore he was presumed to be dead. A mutation no. 252 was entered for transferring the land of Shri Jai Chand to his legal heirs but the mutation was rejected by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade on 26.6.1991 on the grounds that none of the legal heirs of Shri Jai Chand were present nor was it proved that Shri Jai Chand was unheard of or civilly dead. Against this order Smt. Sukhan Devi predecessor-in-interest of present respondents no. 9 to 11 through their GPA Shri Rosan Lal present petitioner had filed an appeal before the Collector Hamirpur sub-division on 30.3.1992. The Collector, after hearing the parties, rejected/ dismissed the appeal being time arred and also holding that Shri Jai Chand was not declared civilly dead. Still aggrieved, the present petitioner who was attorney of Smt Sukhan Devi, filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Mandi division which was later transferred to Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur district (who was vested with the powers of commissioner on a bolltion of the posts of commissioners in the state at that time). The Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur district (as Commissioner) also dismissed the petition vide the impugned order. Hence, this second revision petition. 3. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner and respondents no. 2(b), 3 and 4 had been heard through their counsels. Rest of the respondents had been proceeded against ex-parte during the proceedings. Learned counsel for petitioner had argued that in this case, the estate of Shri Jai Chand is involved and the said Shri Jai Chand is unheard for the last more than 60 years. 2(b), 3 and 4 had been heard through their counsels. Rest of the respondents had been proceeded against ex-parte during the proceedings. Learned counsel for petitioner had argued that in this case, the estate of Shri Jai Chand is involved and the said Shri Jai Chand is unheard for the last more than 60 years. In para 7 of the revision petition, it has been submitted that the Revenue officer was legally bound to sanction mutation as warranted under the law as it was found y the Tehsildar that Shri Jai Chand was unheard for the last more than 55 years by his relations, friends and covillagers but in the present case no proper opportunity has been provided by the Assistant Collector to the petitioner to represent his case; the other party abused the process of law and the order is without jurisdiction and is not based on the facts of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the present petitioner has not been heard by the Assistant Collector while rejecting the mutation; in a mutation of inheritance, the Assistant Collector is bound to issue notice ·to all concerned/intended persons; when petitioner came to know the situation, he filed the appeal but the appeal was dismissed as time barred. According to learned counsel, no enquiry was conducted and no opportunity was given. 4. Learned counsel further stated that the Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of Commissioner, also dismissed the revision as time barred. He cited the case 'Smt Bontu & another vi s Shri Sarju Singh & another' (SLC 1978 pages 151). He argued that the appeal should not have been dismissed in such an unreasonable manner; it has caused miscarriage of justice and the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures. According to him, the law is very liberal and the delay should have been condoned. In support of his contention on delay, he referred the judgments in case (i) 'Shri Partap Singh v/s State of Haryana [PLJ 1979 page 48], (ii) 'Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantang v/s Shri Kaliji' [AIR 1987 page, 1353], (iii) 'Harish Chandra v/s Dy. L.A. Officer & another' [AIR 1961 SC page 1500], (iv) 'Shri Paras Ram v/s Shri Lachman & Ors' [SLC 1995(1}, page 230]. It has been held in the last judgment that a person not heard for 7 years can be presumed to be dead. L.A. Officer & another' [AIR 1961 SC page 1500], (iv) 'Shri Paras Ram v/s Shri Lachman & Ors' [SLC 1995(1}, page 230]. It has been held in the last judgment that a person not heard for 7 years can be presumed to be dead. Learned counsel emphasized that the respondents could not produce him even though 9 years have passed since this case was instituted. Lastly he prayed that the matter be remanded for fresh trial. 5. In reply, Shri Kishore Sharma; counsel for respondent no. 4 argued that this is a second revision petition; no doubt the powers of this court are very vast but the rarest of the rare cases has to be made out for a second revision. According to him, in the present case, the revisionist has come before this court on the same prayer/grounds, i.e. Shri Jai Chand is dead and mutation is to be attested; this was same prayer/ground as in lower courts. It has been contended that there is no findings of any competent court that 'Shri Jai Chand is dead;, mutation comes afterwards. If the matter is sub-judice before a civil court then the findings of the civil court should be awaited before considering the matter of mutation. At this stage, the counsel has presented copy of plaint instituted by the petitioner Shri Roshan Lal before the Sub-Judge, Hamirpur district which indicated that this matter had reached an advance stage and the evidence of the petitioner is complete. According to learned counsel, the matter is in a civil court; the Revenue court should not interfere when a matter is pending before a civil court. In this regard the learned counsel has cited the case 'Kottamarri Narayan vi s Revenue Divisional Officer & Others' [2,009(3) CCC,(AP) page 384]. He further stated that the attestation of mutation is a summary proceedings; only a civil court is competent to a declare person dead. Regarding limitation and of not been given opportunity of being heard, the learned counsel stated that these matters have been considered by three lowers courts which have given concurrent findings. 6. Shri R.N. Bhardwaj, counsel for respondent no. 3 argued that the petitioner has not produced any death certificate in respect of Shri Jai Chand. Shri Anand Swaroop Advocate who appeared as vice Shri Susheed Kanwar, counsel for respondent no. 6. Shri R.N. Bhardwaj, counsel for respondent no. 3 argued that the petitioner has not produced any death certificate in respect of Shri Jai Chand. Shri Anand Swaroop Advocate who appeared as vice Shri Susheed Kanwar, counsel for respondent no. 2(b) endorsed the arguments advanced by the two learned counsel on the respondent side.' 7. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that there is a legal point contained in the Urdu words 'Dakhil Kharaj Makhfud-ul-Khabari' and in such cases, the Revenue officers are competent to decide the matters. As regards the matter being sub-judice, learned counsel for petitioner stated that the Revenue Officers are not bound to await decisions of civil courts and should give decision on facts available; the Supreme Court citation given by the counsel for respondent is not applicable. Further regarding the death certificate of Shri Jai Chand, the learned counsel controverted the plea asserting that this lies on the respondents as they had applied for the mutations; now they are estopped from arguing that the petitioner should get the death certificate. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is asking only that matter may be remanded to the Assistant Collector to find out if Shri Jai Chand has expired; petitioner is not asking that the mutation be sanctioned in his favour. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the records of the case. The main controversy in this case revolves around mutation no. 252 pertaining to the succession of Shri Jai Chand, who was reported to have been missing for the last more than 50 years. The mutation was rejected by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade vide order dated 26.6.1991 on the ground that the legal heirs of Shir Jai Chand were not coming forth and the death of Shri Jai Chand was also not proved. Both the courts below have upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. 9. Mutation no. 252 was purported to have been entered on the basis of Rapat no. 31 dated 25.9.1990 by the halqua Patwari. Both the courts below have upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. 9. Mutation no. 252 was purported to have been entered on the basis of Rapat no. 31 dated 25.9.1990 by the halqua Patwari. A perusal of the copy of aforesaid mutation shows that on 25.12.1990, the mutation came up for consideration before the Assistant Collector who has in his order recorded that in the presence of the public, Smt Rukmu Devi, mother of Shri Jai Chand and the Halqua Lambardar stated that Shri Jai Chand was missing for the last more than 50 years. The Assistant Collector thereupon directed that fee for publication of notice may be deposited in the Tehsil office so that action could be taken on the mutation in accordance with law. There is nothing on record whether the said notice was published or not. The mutation again came up for consideration before the Assistant Collector on 30.3.1991, when none was present. On 26.6.1991, again in the absence of parties, the Assistant Collector straight away rejected the mutation on the ground that the legal heirs of Shri Jai Chand were informed for the dates when the mutation was put up before the Assistant Collector. It was incumbent upon the Assistant Collector to have informed the legal heirs of Shri Jai Chand or the person who made a missing report in respect of Shri J ai Chand to the Halqua Patwari on the basis of which Rapat no. 31 dated 25.9.1990 entered. Thus proper opportunity of being heard was not afforded to the legal heirs to substantiate their claim of inheritance of Shri Jai Chand's property. Keeping this in view, the orders passed by the courts below are not legally sustainable. 10. It would also be relevant to refer to para 8.47 of the H.P. Land Record Manual wherein detailed procedure has been laid down for attestation of such mutations; in the instant case, these have not been followed. 11. Learned counsels for both parties have also brought to the notice of this court that a civil suit for declaration to the effect that Shri Jai Chand is to be declared civilly dead, is also pending adjudication in the court of SubJudge, Hamirpur. 11. Learned counsels for both parties have also brought to the notice of this court that a civil suit for declaration to the effect that Shri Jai Chand is to be declared civilly dead, is also pending adjudication in the court of SubJudge, Hamirpur. In this regard learned counsel for the respondents cited the case of 'Kottamarri Narayan v/s Revenue Divisional Officer & Others' /2009(3) CCC, (AP) page 384} where in it has been held that when a civil suit is pending adjudication before the competent authority, the Revenue authorities should not interfere in the matter. In this case, the above citation is not relevant since there is no stay order or direction by the civil court directing the Revenue authorities not to proceed with the mutation of inheritance of Shri Jai Chand. A Revenue court cannot and should no defer proceedings just because a matter is pending adjudication before a civil court. It they were to do so, any interested party could institute proceedings in connected matters before a civil court and thereby bring proceedings in Revenue courts to a halt for prolonged periods. If a matter is pending before a civil court, it is for the parties to obtain a direction from the civil court to stay proceedings in Revenue courts. If a legally valid stay order from a civil court is received, it should be obeyed but in the absence of such an order, proceedings in Revenue courts should continue. The outcome of the final judgment/decree of the civil court is undoubtedly binding on the Revenue officials/courts and the revenue record can always be corrected lateron. As such the Assistant Collector is bound to decide the mutation in the absence of any stay order from a civil court. 12. In view of the above, the orders of the courts below are set aside. The Assistant Collector is directed to attest the mutation afresh in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity to the parties concerned. 13. Announced in open court today the 25th June, 2010 their claim of inheritance of Shri Jai Chand's property. Keeping this in view, the orders passed by the courts below are not legally sustainable. 10. It would also be relevant to refer to para 8.47 of the H.P. Land Record Manual wherein detailed procedure has been laid down for attestation of such mutations; in the instant case, these have not been followed. Keeping this in view, the orders passed by the courts below are not legally sustainable. 10. It would also be relevant to refer to para 8.47 of the H.P. Land Record Manual wherein detailed procedure has been laid down for attestation of such mutations; in the instant case, these have not been followed. 11. Learned counsels for both parties have also brought to the notice of this court that a civil suit for declaration to the effect that Shri Jai Chand is to be declared civilly dead, is also pending adjudication in the court of SubJudge, Hamirpur. In this regard learned counsel for the respondents cited the case of 'Kottamarri Narayan v/s Revenue Divisional Officer & Others' /2009(3) CCC, (AP) page 384] where in it has been held that when a civil suit is pending adjudication before the competent authority, the Revenue authorities should not interfere in the matter. In this case, the above citation is not relevant since there is no stay order or direction by the civil court directing the Revenue authorities not to proceed with the mutation of inheritance of Shri Jai Chand. A Revenue court cannot and should no defer proceedings just because a matter is pending adjudication before a civil court. It they were to do so, any interested party could institute proceedings in connected matters before a civil court and thereby bring proceedings in Revenue courts to a halt for prolonged periods. If a matter is pending before a civil court, it is for the parties to obtain a direction from the civil court to stay proceedings in Revenue courts. If a legally valid stay order from a civil court is received, it should be obeyed but in the absence of such an order, proceedings in Revenue courts should continue. The outcome of the final judgment/decree of the civil court is undoubtedly binding on the Revenue officials/courts and the revenue record can always be corrected lateron. As such the Assistant Collector is bound to decide the mutation in the absence of any stay order from a civil court. 12. In view of the above, the orders of the courts below are set aside. The Assistant Collector is directed to attest the mutation afresh in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity to the parties concerned. 13. Announced in open court today the 25th June, 2010 at Hamirpur. 12. In view of the above, the orders of the courts below are set aside. The Assistant Collector is directed to attest the mutation afresh in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity to the parties concerned. 13. Announced in open court today the 25th June, 2010 at Hamirpur. Records of the courts below be returned and the file be consigned to the record room after due completion. M.R.B