Rattan Lal vs Rikhia and Others

S.S. Sidhu, I.A.S.

Shri Rattan Lal has assailed the order dated 22-7-1987 of the Commissioner, Shimla Division, in this revision petition.

The facts of the case briefly stated are that Smt Rodi widow of Shri Sahba, resident of village Patlion, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmur, executed a Will in respect of her movable and immovable property on 1-9 1983 in favour of Shri Rattan Lal, Petitioner. This Will was got registered before the Sub-Registrar, Paonta Sahib, on 2-9-1983 On the basis of this Will, after the death of Smt. Rodi in June, 1984, mutation No. 610 was entered in favour of Shri Rattan Lal by the Patwari in the register of mutation Later on, the present Respondents, Shri Rikhia and Ors. reportedly produced an unregistered Will dated 29-8-1983, executed in their favour and in favour of Shri Rattan Lal, Petitioner by the said Smt. Rodi. At the time of attestation, both the Wills were examined by the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Paonta Sahib, who came to the conclusion that both the Wills were disputed and needed adjudication by a competent court of law. Since he could not defer the attestation of mutation, he attested the mutation on 16-5-1986 in favour of Shri Rattan Lal, Petitioner and all the Respondents, in the present revision petition, in equal share Feeling aggrieved by this order, Shri Rattan Lal preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Paonta Sahib, who accepted the same on 4-2-1986 and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Paonta Sahtb for deciding the case as per registered and latest Will in favour of Shri Rattan Lal, Petitioner. Feeling dis-satisfied with the order dated 4-12-1986 of the Sub-Divisional Collector, Paonta Sahib, Shri Rikhia and two Ors. filed an appeal before the Commissioner. Shimla Division, who accepted the same and set aside the order dated 4-12-1986 of the Sub-Divisional Collector, Paonta Sahib. As a result, he restored the order dated 16-5-1986 of the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Paonta Sahib, passed on mutation of inheritance. Now Shri Rattan Lal has come in revision before us against the order dated 22-7-1987 of the learned Commissioner, Shimla Division.

We have gone through the record of the case and have also heard Shri N.A. Sheikh, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri T.S. Shah, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Respondents. The perusal of record reveals that while attesting the mutation, the learned Assistant Collector, II Grade, examined the witnesses, who had attested the Will dated 1-9-1993 executed in favour of Shri Rattan Lal, Petitioner and other Will dated 29-8-1983. He had thus come to the conclusion that both the Wills were disputed and had not preferred the registered Will in favour of Shri Rattan Lal to the disadvantage of other unregistered Will. It is a settled law that the mutation proceedings are of summary nature and genuineness of the unregistered Will disputed by the parties should not be looked into by the Revenue Officer involving intricate question of law and facts Since both the Wills presented before the Revenue Officer were disputed, he did right thing in sanctioning the mutation in favour of both the parties. The genuineness of the Will can only be decided by a civil Court and the revenue record can be brought in conformity with their decision as and when it comes order passed by the learned Commissioner, Shimla Division, is well reasoned and detailed one. All the points raised by the Petitioners have been fully covered in his order. As such, we find no reason to interfere with his order dated 22-7-1987. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

Order be communicated.