LPA No.2071 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.2071 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 14, 2011 Jarnail Singh and others .....APPELLANTS Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH --- Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the appellants. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 7.4.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.5646 of 2011) filed by the appellants, who are sons of Sadhu Singh, challenging the order dated 26.9.2006 passed by the Commissioner and the order dated 17.1.2011 passed by the Financial Commissioner, has been dismissed; as well as the order dated 25.8.2011, whereby the application filed by the appellants for recalling the aforesaid order dated 7.4.2011, has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Though this appeal is barred by limitation, and along with the appeal the appellants have filed an application (CM No.5556 of 2011) for condonation of 166 days of delay in filing the appeal, however, without LPA No.2071 of 2011 (O&M) -2- taking the said delay into consideration, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on merits and gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The dispute in this case is about the mutation pertaining to the land owned by Sadhu Singh, father of the appellants. Undisputedly, Sadhu Singh was having wife, four sons and two daughters. The appellants claimed the mutation on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 10.4.1999, which was alleged to have been executed by their father, excluding the daughters and the wife. Initially the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, on the application filed by the appellants, sanctioned the mutation in their favour vide order dated 22.5.2003. The daughter of Sadhu Singh (respondent No.3 herein) challenged the said order by filing an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 17.8.2004. However, on revision filed by her, the aforesaid orders were set aside by the Commissioner vide order dated 26.9.2006 and the mutation was ordered to be sanctioned on the basis of natural succession in favour of all the legal heirs of Sadhu Singh in equal shares. Against the said order, the appellants filed revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was dismissed vide order dated 17.1.2011. The Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner set aside the orders of the Assistant Collector and Collector primarily on the ground that the Will was unregistered, which alleged to have been not fully proved beyond suspicious circumstances. Learned counsel for the appellants being fully aware of the legal position that the mutation does not confer any title and the mutation LPA No.2071 of 2011 (O&M) -3- proceedings under Punjab Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and, thus, any finding recorded therein is neither binding on the Civil Court nor will operate as res judicata, states that the appellants may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to the appellants to file a Civil Suit claiming their right on the basis of the said Will by proving the same before the Civil Court, in accordance with law. He only prays that any observations made by the Revenue Courts as well as by the learned Single Judge be not taken against the appellants. This submission is fair as the mutation proceedings before the Revenue Court are summary in nature and any finding recorded therein is not binding on the Civil Court. In view of the above, the appellants are permitted to withdraw this appeal with the aforesaid liberty to establish their right under the said Will before the Civil Court by proving it, in accordance with law. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 14, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) vkg JUDGE