L.P.A. No. 268 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 268 of 2009 Date of Decision: December 18, 2009 Gurmail Singh and others ............ Appellants versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and another ............. Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- Present: Shri G.S. Kaura, Advocate for the appellants. Shri J.S. Puri, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.1 Shri S.S. Rani, Advocate for respondent No. 2. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on January 20, 2009 whereby a writ petition arising out of mutation proceedings was dismissed. The appellants are claiming the estate measuring 32 Kanals 9 Marlas of Smt. Indi wife of Jhaba on the basis of Will dated 15.02.1949. L.P.A. No. 268 of 2009 [2] Earlier, mutation No. 123 was entered on 18.08.1957 in favour of the State Government as Smt. Indi did not leave any heir. The same was not incorporated in the jamabandi. Subsequently, mutation No. 243 was entered on 23.08.1967 cancelling the earlier mutation on the basis of report of the Kanungo that the mutation in favour of the State Government is wrong entry and is required to be corrected. Subsequently, mutation No. 527 was entered on 13.3.1982 when Ralla Singh propounded unregistered Will allegedly executed by Indi in his favour. The said order of sanction of mutation was disputed by the Harijan Cooperative Society. The Collector vide order dated 30.09.2002 recommended the revision petition to the Commissioner for its acceptance and for cancelling the mutation No. 527 and restoring mutation No. 123. The Commissioner vide order dated 12.03.2003 rejected the reference made by the Collector but the same was accepted by the learned Financial Commissioner on 02.09.2009 and it was the said order which was challenged by way of writ petition before this Court. The learned Financial Commissioner has found that once the mutation has been legally and properly sanctioned, the same cannot be changed. Since mutation No. 123 was sanctioned and attested by the Assistant Collector in favour of the State, the same could not be substituted by another mutation in favour of the present appellants. It was noticed that mutation of property does not create or extinguish title nor it has presumptive value of title. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants argued that in terms of the decree of the civil suit, the State has no title over the suit property, therefore, the mutation sanctioned in favour of the appellants L.P.A. No. 268 of 2009 [3] could not be said to be illegal. It is pointed out that suit for possession filed by the State in respect of the estate of Smt. Indi stands dismissed on 20.09.2008 for not producing any evidence under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Though the civil suit claiming possession has been dismissed but we cannot overlook the fraud perpetuated by the appellants in usurping the estate of Smt. Indi. The appellants have propounded Will dated 15.02.1949 but was produced before the revenue authorities for the first time on 13.03.1982. Though the date of death of Indi could not be disclosed by the learned counsel for the appellants but the fact remains that mutation of the escheat of the estate Smt. Indi was entered in favour of the State on 18.08.1957. For long number of years, the appellants have not claimed the estate of Smt. Indi on the basis of so called Will. The dismissal of the suit for possession in which Will has not been propounded will not be sufficient to return a finding that title in favour of the appellants stand decided by the civil Court. It is well settled that fraud vitiates the entire proceedings, therefore, on the basis of dismissal of the suit of the State, that too for lack of evidence, will not be sufficient to return a finding that the appellants are the owners of the suit property as legatees of Smt. Indi. The disputed question of title whether the appellants are successors of Smt. Indi on the basis of unregistered Will dated 15.02.1949 is required to be adjudicated upon by the civil Court and not in mutation proceedings. Consequently, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge which may warrant interference in the present L.P.A. No. 268 of 2009 [4] intra court appeal. Dismissed. (Hemant Gupta) Judge December 18, 2009 (Jora Singh) ks Judge