Sarwan Singh vs Labh Singh

S.R. Bunger, FC.

The present case has been reported by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala, Sh. N.S. Rattan, under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 31.8.1989, pased by the SubDivisional Collector, Sunam, District Sangrur, in a case of mutation regarding inheritance.

The brief facts of this case are, that, consequent upon the death of Mukhtiar Singh son of Kirru on 7.4.1988, mutation No. 5337 of Village Sekhubas, Tehsil Sunam, regarding inheritance was entered by the Halqa Patwari in the names of his brothers namely, Sarwan Singh, Labh Singh, Karnail Singh, Nand Singh; and sisters, namely : Karnail Kaur, Sham Kaur and Mukhtiar Kaur, in equal shares, as Mukhtiar Singh had reportedly died intestate without leaving behind any issue or widow, being unmarried. As the deceased did not leave behind any heir of class I, so the property was to devolve on the relatives specified in ClassII of the Schedule, to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This mutation was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Lehragaga, as per his order dated 8.6.1988. At the time of sanctioning of the mutation, Labh Singh, a brother of the deceased was present and the entries in the mutation were verified by Amar Singh, Lambardar of the village. Against this order, Sarwan Singh, the present petitioner, a brother of the deceased, alone had filed the appeal dated 1.10.1988, which was addressed to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Sunam, and the same was decided by the Sub Divisional Collector, Sunam, vide his order dated 31.8.1989. In his appeal, which was rejected, Sarwan Singh had taken the plea, that, Karnail Singh, brother of the deceased had actually murdered Mukhtiar Singh, and as such, he was "disqualified" from inheriting the property of Mukhtiar Singh, as envisaged under Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, the Collector had rejected the appeal on the ground that, since mutation No. 5337 stood incorporated in the jamabandi of the village for the year 198788, so, as the Revenue Officer, he was not competent to interfere in the order dated 8.6.1988, passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Lehragaga, and, only the Civil Court was competent to interfere, by placing his reliance on the authority contained in 1970 PLJ page 3. Aggrieved by the Collector''s order, Sarwan Singh had filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, as a result of which, the present case has been reported by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala, with his recommendation, that, in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Karnail Singh be excluded from the inheritance of Mukhtiar Singh deceased, as per his reference dated 17.7.1995. The operative part of the reference reads as follows : "The provisions of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act is very clear and very grave irregularity has been committed by the Lower court by sanctioning the inheritance of Mukhtiar Singh deceased in favour of Karnail Singh, admittedly the killer of Mukhtiar Singh, deceased. The revision petition is therefore recommended for excluding Karnail Singh from the inhertiance of Mukhtiar Singh deceased."

The learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard, as the respondents were proceeded against exparte. This is a reference case, and an opportunity of being heard, has been provided to both the sides.

After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and after thorough perusal of the record, I am of the view, that the present reference needs to be ignored and the revision petition merits to be rejected.

At the outset, it may be pointed out, that, the deceased Mukhtiar Singh was survived by four brothers and three sisters, in whose favour the mutation was sanctioned; but, at the time of sanctioning of mutation by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Lehragaga, none of them had raised any objection or had taken the plea of excluding Karnail Singh from inheritance, on the ground, that, he was a murderer of Mukhtiar Singh. At the time of sanctioning of the mutation, Labh Singh, a brother of the deceased was reportedly present, and he had not raised any objection at all. The contents of the mutation were verified by Amar singh, Lambardar of the village. It was only Sarwan Singh, who had pleaded to ignore Karnail Singh, in his appeal; but, he had not brought any evidence on the record to prove, that, Karnail Singh was murderer of Mukhtiar Singh.

As revealed from the record, Mutation No. 5337, stood incorporated in the jamabandi of the village for the year 198788; and as such, the SubDivisional Collector, Sunam, had rightly rejected the appeal filed by Sarwan Singh, on the ground, that, he was no longer competent to interfere in the impugned order, and only the competent Civil court could take cognizance of the matter, in a regular suit. He had rightly relied upon the authority, contained in 1970 PLJ Page 3.

Surprisingly, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reported this case, recommending the exclusion of Karnail Singh from inheritance, on the mere ipso dixit of Sarwan Singh, because, there is not even an iota of evidence on the record, to prove, that, Karnail Singh had committed murder or had abetted the murder of Mukhtiar Singh. One fails to understand, as to on what basis, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed in his reference that, "Karnail Singh, admittedly the killer of Mukhtiar Singh deceased". This observation is absolutely unfounded and baseless, because, none has admitted this, and, it is a mere assertion of Sarwan Singh.

Similarly, there is no justification in the observation made by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), that, the Lower court has committed a "grave irregularity" by sanctioning inheritance of Mukhtiar Singh in favour of Karnail Singh, because, there was no occasion to consider the alleged "disqualification" of Karnail Singh by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, because this issue was never raised before him; and, the Collector had pleaded incompetence to consider this plea because the mutation order passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, had already been incorporated in the jamabandi of the village. Thus, neither the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, nor the Collector, had committed any irregularity and the orders passed by them are in order.

it is true that, Section 25 read with Section 27 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, do disqualify the "murders and abetters of murder" from inheriting the property of the person murdered, but, this can be done only when a person concerned has been clearly established to be so, by the competent court, by convicting and punishing such person. In the present case, no judgment of any Criminal or Civil Court has been placed on the record to substantiate the assertion, made by Sarwan Singh. In the given situation, in the absence of any categorical findings against Karnail Singh, the charge against him is hypothetical, nonexistent and cannot be taken cognizance of by the Revenue Officer, while sanctioning the mutation of inheritance of the deceased. No person can be ignored from inheritance on hearsay; and, there must be clear and categorical findings of the competent courts, which should have obtained finality, establishing the charge against the person concerned, for ignoring him; in the absence of that, the Revenue officers are not supposed to ignore such a person from inheritance of the deceased.

The SubDivisional Collector had rightly rejected the appeal on the ground that, as the mutation had been incorporated in the jamabandi, so he was no longer competent to interfere in the mutation order. It is a settled proposition of law, that, once the mutation orders are incorporated in the jamabandi, the Revenue Officers become functus officio, and, no longer remain competent to interfere in the mutation orders; except, in those cases, where genuine mistakes in arithmetical calculations and clerical errors, which are rectifiable with the entry of ''fardbad ars'' as envisaged in para 7.29 of the Punjab Land Records Manual, have cropped up.

In view of the above discussion, the present reference is totally un called for; and, the recommendation made by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is untenable. Accordingly, the present reference is ignored, and the revision petition is rejected, being without any merit.

Announced.