C.W.P.No.16916 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.16916 of 2007 Date of Decision 30.11.2009 Masjid Khalifan Wali and another ........ Petitioners Versus The Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.S.K.Bhanot, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 21.11.2000, (Annexure P-9) passed by the District Collector-cum- Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, which had been affirmed upto the Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 12.9.2007(Annexure P-12), wherein during the pendency of the mutation proceedings, it was observed that since Sooba had died and his wife Mst. Halima Bibi had gone to Pakistan, the State had become a necessary party to those proceedings and had been impleaded as such. Accordingly, it was ordered that notice be issued to the Tehsildar, Malerkotla, to explain the reason as to why this property be not declared escheat and handed over to the State or it be considered as evacuee property. These orders are under challenge in this writ petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab, Chandigarh, who C.W.P.No.16916 of 2007 -2- after hearing the arguments had pronounced the order on 10.1.2007 (Annexure P-11) allowing the revision petition, but while dictating the order he had ordered to fix the case for re-hearing on the ground that certain facts had come to his notice which needed clarification. Thereafter, vide order dated 12.9.2007 (Annexure-P12), upheld the order dated 13.6.2006, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala as well as the order dated 21.11.2000, whereby the District Collector issued the notice in question. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have filed an application for change of mutation in their favour on the basis of Will dated 17.8.1954, executed by Sooba son of Dhoota, caste Kamboh, resident of Gaunspura, Tehsil Malerkotla, wherein it was mentioned that the entire property would go to Mst. Halima Bibi during her life time and after her death, the property would vest in Masjid Khalifan Wali. Said Sooba Khan @ Soobha Khan died on 1.10.1983, and accordingly his property came to be bequeathed in favour of his widow Mst. Halima Bibi and subsequently it was to come to Masjid Kahlifan Wali, Mohalla Chhati Gali, Malerkotla, as owner. During the pendency of the mutation proceedings, Mst. Halima Bibi had shifted to Pakistan. She had sworn an affidavit (Annexure P-2), giving “no objection” with regard to the sanction of mutation in favour of the petitioner, Masjid Kahlifan Wali. However, when it came to the notice of the District Collector, that Mst. Halima Bibi, aforesaid, had given her “no objection” with regard to the property, he issued notice to the State as to why the property in dispute be not declared as escheat or evacuee property, as noticed earlier. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. C.W.P.No.16916 of 2007 -3- In pursuance of the notice having been issued by this Court, the State has filed reply and in para 13 thereof, it has stated as under: “The sub-paras from (a) to (t) are matter of record, fact and law. The answering respondent have no concern with these paras. The matter in dispute is purely private between the petitioners and remaining respondents. The property in dispute is not a Evacuee Property as per provisions of law. As per Will of Sooba Khan alias Soobha and 3 affidavits of Mst. Halima Bibi dated 6.12.84, 23.10.99 and 13.1.2000, the petitioner No.1 is owner in possession of disputed property.” Mr.S.K.Bhanot, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, does not dispute that the lis in fact is between the private parties and the State has no right or interest in the property as the same does not vest in the State. After hearing counsel for the parties and in view of the above and the reply filed by the State, the present writ petition is allowed and the orders, Annexures P-9, P-10 and P-12, are set aside. The case is remitted to the District Collector to proceed further in the matter and decide the mutation proceedings in accordance with law. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. November 30, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) rishu JUDGE