IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 21879 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 14, 2011 Lakhwinder Kaur ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Rajinder Kumar Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raghbir Chaudhary, Sr. DAG, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 6 to 13. 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Record reveals that after the death of Ajit Singh, who was in Indian Army, during the Pakistan Aggression of 1965, Parkash Kaur widow of Ajit Singh had remarried to the real brother of deceased Ajit Singh i.e. Sarwan Singh. Parkash Kaur was having two children i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 13 out of the wedlock with Ajit Singh. CWP No.21879 of 2010 However, Parkash Kaur had seven other children from the second marriage. After the death of Parkash Kaur, dispute arose As to whether property allotted to Parkash Kaur being widow of Ajit Singh would be inherited by legal heirs of Ajit Singh i.e. petitioner and respondent No.13, or shall be inherited by all the legal heirs of Parkash Kaur as per Hindu Succession Act? Mr. R.S. Chauhan, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 13, as well as, Mr. Rajinder Kumar Singla, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that a civil suit, before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phillaur, involving question of inheritance of the estate of Parkash Kaur, is pending. Learned counsel for the parties, in view of judgment passed by this Court in the case of Shamsher Singh vs. Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and others, C.W.P. No. 16338 of 2011, decided on 02.09.2011, have fairly stated that mutation has to be carried out by the revenue authorities as per the final verdict in the civil suit. Learned counsel have further fairly stated that revenue officers, while hearing the summary proceedings of the mutation, are not competent to decide complicated question of law and facts including the interpretation of Hindu Law that who will inherit the estate of widow Parkash Kaur, therefore, the only proper forum is Civil Court. Learned counsel for the 2 CWP No.21879 of 2010 parties have further stated that civil suit shall be decided, at its own merit, in accordance with law and without being prejudiced from any observations, findings and decision in the impugned mutation proceedings and any finding, observation or decision in the impugned orders shall not be res judicata in a pending civil suit. In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Shamsher Singh (supra), I am not inclined to invoke writ jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the impugned orders passed in the mutation proceedings. In view of the above, present petition stands disposed of with the direction that an entry shall be made in the revenue record that question of title is pending before the Civil Court; Civil Court shall decide the suit without being prejudiced from the impugned orders passed in mutation proceedings and any observation, finding or decision in the impugned orders shall not be res judicata in the pending civil suit. Revenue authorities shall carry out mutation as per the final verdict of the civil suit pending between the parties. September 14, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3