JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. (Oral):- Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, thereby remanding a case of mutation to Assistant Collector 1st Grade, to take fresh decision after due notice to both the parties, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing of the impugned order. 2. Facts first. The dispute in the present case relates to mutation number 3692 of village Passian, Tehsil and District Patiala, which came to be recorded as a mutation of inheritance on the death of Smt. Shardi Devi, widow of Hari Ram. It is the own pleaded case of the petitioner that Hari Ram left behind his widow Smt. Shardi Devi, three sons namely Karamjit Singh, Chandan Ram and Lajja Ram as well as four daughters, namely Nachhattar Kaur, Smt. Basso, Smt. Satya and Smt. Chhoti. Lajja Ram died unmarried and issue less on 26.11.2001 and after his death mutation number 2929 was sanctioned, as per succession. On the death of Smt.Shardi Devi, since the mutation became contested, it was referred to Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Patiala, who sanctioned the same in favour of respondent No.5, on the basis of unregistered Will dated 25.9.2005, vide his order dated 26.12.2008 (Annexure P-1). The appeal filed by the petitioner against the above-said order dated 26.11.2008 was dismissed by the Collector Patiala vide his order dated 6.8.2009 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner approached the Commissioner, Patiala Division and his revision was allowed, vide order dated 14.9.2010 (Annexure P-6). The Commissioner set aside the above-said orders dated 26.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and also the order dated 6.8.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector. The mutation was ordered to be sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of un-registered Will dated 17.3.2006. Dissatisfied, respondent No.5 approached the Financial Commissioner challenging the above-said order dated 14.9.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division. The revision petition filed by respondent No.5 was allowed by the Financial Commissioner remanding the case back to Assistant Collector 1st Grade with a direction to issue notice to all the legal heirs of deceased Smt. Shardi Devi, vide order dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure P-10). Petitioner impugnes this order by way of present writ petition. 3. The revision petition filed by respondent No.5 was allowed by the Financial Commissioner remanding the case back to Assistant Collector 1st Grade with a direction to issue notice to all the legal heirs of deceased Smt. Shardi Devi, vide order dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure P-10). Petitioner impugnes this order by way of present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner was illegal and contrary to the facts of the case. He further submits that the order passed by the Commissioner was factually correct and legally justified which ought to have been upheld by the Financial Commissioner. He next contended that since the daughters of Smt. Shardi Devi were not coming forward, there was no necessity of issuing notice to them. He also submits that before passing the order dated 26.12.2008 (Annexure P-1), Assistant Collector 1st Grade, has issued summons to all the legal heirs including the daughters, but they did not come forward. He concluded by submitting that the impugned order dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure P-10) may be set aside by allowing the present writ petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present one is a case which is without any substance and it is liable to be dismissed for the following more than one reasons. 5. It has come on record that the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 are claiming the entire land left behind by Smt. Shardi Devi, on the basis of Will. Respondent No.5 claims that Smt. Shardi Devi executed the Will dated 25.9.2005, on the basis of which, he was entitled for the land. On the other hand, petitioner claims that Smt. Shardi Devi executed the Will dated 17.3.2006 on the basis of which, he was entitled for mutation in his favour. However, it is not in dispute that Smt. Shardi Devi was having above-said four daughters also. It is also a matter of record that neither the petitioner nor respondent No.5 have impleaded them while pursuing the present mutation proceedings. 6. So far as the reference made by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Patiala, in his order dated 26.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) that all the legal heirs relating to this mutation were summoned, it was not sufficient. It is also a matter of record that neither the petitioner nor respondent No.5 have impleaded them while pursuing the present mutation proceedings. 6. So far as the reference made by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Patiala, in his order dated 26.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) that all the legal heirs relating to this mutation were summoned, it was not sufficient. The only sentence written by Assistant Collector 1st Grade in his order (Annexure P-1) in this regard, reads as under:- “All the legal heirs relating to this mutation were summoned and this case was fixed for the evidence of Balwinder Singh.” 7. Assistant Collector 1st Grade is not saying anything whether the summons issued to four daughters of Smt. Shardi Devi were, as a matter of record, served on them. It is not forthcoming as to on which addresses, the notices were issued to them. 8. It is pertinent to note here that all the four daughters of Smt. Shardi Devi were married and had been staying at their respective matrimonial homes. In this view of the matter, this Court has not found any illegality in the remand order passed by the Financial Commissioner. 9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner. He does not deny the fact that Smt. Shardi Devi has left behind four daughters, who have not been impleaded as party respondents. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that Assistant Collector 1st Grade has summoned all the legal heirs, as pointed out above. However, when asked whether the daughters of Smt. Shardi Devi were duly served, he had no answer. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to on what addresses, the summons were allegedly issued to the four daughters of Smt. Shardi Devi. In view of this fact situation of the present case, the Financial Commissioner has committed no error of law while passing the remand order directing the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Patiala, to issue notice to all the legal heirs of the deceased and decide the mutation afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to all the parties. Having said that, this Court feels hesitation to conclude that the impugned order does not suffer from any patent illegality or perversity. 11. Having said that, this Court feels hesitation to conclude that the impugned order does not suffer from any patent illegality or perversity. 11. The Financial Commissioner has heard both the parties and before arriving at the conclusion, he has discussed each and every aspect of the matter. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Financial Commissioner had passed the non-speaking order. After discussing the minute details of the case, the Financial Commissioner came to the conclusion that since four daughters of Smt. Shardi Devi have not been heard, he rightly remanded the case to Assistant Collector 1st Grade with a direction to issue notice to all the legal heirs of Smt. Shardi Devi. It is pertinent to refer to the operative part of the impugned order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, which reads as under- “I have heard counsel for the respondent & perused the written arguments presented by counsel for petitioner, as well as the record of the case. I find that the revenue officers have erred in this case in not notifying all the legal heirs of the deceased Shardi Devi. The Shajra Nasab shows that she had 3 sons (of whom one died issueless) and 4 daughters. However, the daughters have not been notified or heard. All of them are interested parties & must be afforded an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted and the case is remanded to A.C. 1st Grade Patiala, who shall issue notice to all legal heirs of the deceased, and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, decide the mutation afresh.” 12. During the course of hearing, it was not pointed out on behalf of the petitioner as to what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by passing the impugned order. The impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner is only a remand order. All the parties, including the petitioner shall get due opportunity to put up their respective case. It is the basic principle of natural justice that nobody should be condemned unheard. It does not appeal to reason as to why the petitioner is opposing the compliance of the principle of natural justice. On the other hand, if the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, it will amount to the glaring violation of the rule of audi alteram partem. It does not appeal to reason as to why the petitioner is opposing the compliance of the principle of natural justice. On the other hand, if the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, it will amount to the glaring violation of the rule of audi alteram partem. Thus, it is unhesitatingly held that the Financial Commissioner has rightly come to the conclusion that the daughters of Smt. Shardi Devi were also entitled to be heard, in the mutation proceedings. 13. No other argument was raised. 14. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is bereft of any merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out. 15. Resultantly, the instant writ petition is ordered to be dismissed. --------0.B.S.0------------ ———————————