Gian Singh vs Harjit Singh

Shyama Mann, FC.

This is a reference dated 31.1.1997 from the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala recommending that the revision petition of Gian Singh son of Bara Singh against the order of the Collector, Ropar dated 7.10.1993 be accepted.

In this case, Mutation No. 745 of village Niamian relating to inheritance of Dalip Singh was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector GradeI, Kharar on 4.1.1993 in favour of the respondents on the basis of a registered will dated 2.7.1992. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Collector, Rupnagar but this appeal was dismissed. On 8.6.1996, registered Will was set aside by the Civil Judge, Kharar. The grounds in revision by Gian Singh are that since the Will has been executed in favour of the respondents, the order dated 4.1.1993 passed by Assistant Collector GradeI sanctioning the mutation in favour of the respondents should be set aside. On behalf of the respondents it has been argued that since they have challenged the civil court judgment and the operation of that judgment has been stayed on 24.7.1996, there is no justification for setting aside the said order.

The Commissioner has observed that from the judgment of the Civil Court it transpires that the plea taken by the petitioner that he has been condemned unheard by the Assistant Collector GradeI and Collector is correct. The Commissioner has, therefore, recommended that the order of Assistant Collector GradeI as well as of District Collector, Ropar should be set aside and the case should be remanded to Assistant Collector GradeI with the direction that it should be decided in accordance with the civil court decree after finalisation of the appeal pending in the court of the District Judge, Ropar. The suggestion of the Commissioner is that the decision of the District Judge, Ropar be awaited seeks to keep the matter pending for an unspecified period and is, therefore, not acceptable. Since there is a stay against the order of the Subordinate Judge setting aside the Will, the other suggestion that the orders of the two lower courts should be set aside is somewhat premature as in the event of the case being decided in favour of the respondents, the mutation would have to be entered again. The recommendations of the Commissioner would have been acceptable if there was no stay in favour of the respondents. The third suggestion that Assistant Collector GradeI should be given a direction that the mutation should be decided in accordance with Civil Court decree after finalisation of the appeal is also not warranted. The lower revenue authorities do not require a direction from the Financial Commissioner to decide the case in accordance with the Civil Court decree as they are duty bound to do so in case there is no further litigation.

Mutation does not ipso facto confer any right or title on the party in whose favour it is sanctioned, but is a means of updating the revenue record. I, therefore, appreciate the underlying anxiety of the learned Commissioner that if the existing entry in the revenue record is allowed to remain as it is, it may not reflect the true state of affairs. It is important that the correct position relating to ownership is brought on record as it is necessary to safeguard the interests of strangers visavis the parties contesting the ownership. I am informed by the counsels that the mutation has been reflected in the recent jamabandi. This interest can be safeguard at this stage by making an entry relating to the decree and the stay in the ''rapat roznamcha'' of the halqa Patwari alongwith a corresponding entry in the remarks column of the recent jamabandi as per the provisions of section 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 with red ink.

The reference dated 31.1.1997 from the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala is declined and the Assistant Collector GradeI, Kharar is ordered to get necessary entries incorporated in the ''rapat roznamcha'' and jamabandi as per direction given in para 4 above.

Announced.