C.W.P. No.17338 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.17338 of 2011 Date of Decision.15.09.2011 Birbal son of late Smt. Krishna Devi, resident of village Joga at present resident of Kulana Road, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa .....Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Mansa, Mini Secretariat, Mansa and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. R.V.S. Chugh, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by a dependency certificate obtained by one Gursagar Singh claiming as son of Krishna Devi born through her 2nd husband Kartar Singh. The petitioner claims to be son of Krishna Devi through her 1st husband. Gursagar Singh appears to have applied to the Deputy Commissioner for issuance of a dependency certificate by relying on a Will alleged to have been executed by Krishna Devi. The petitioner's contention is that the Gursagar Singh has deliberately suppressed the fact that the petitioner is also a heir to Krishna Devi. The declaration of a legal status cannot be made by executive authorities and it will not have any bearing to the petitioner's right. If the petitioner seeks for claim to any of the properties left behind by Krishna Devi including outstandings and immovable properties, the petitioner will be at liberty to prosecute the same in the manner known to law. While prosecuting such a case, any certificate, which is C.W.P. No.17338 of 2011 -2- propounded by the 5th respondent, cannot, in any way, be material for determination of the legal status. It will be done independently by a Court of competent jurisdiction, if a right to estate ever becomes an issue for adjudication. I have no reason for modifying or cancelling the order issued in favour of Gursagar Singh at the instance of the 2nd respondent, for it cannot affect the petitioner's right in any way and the petitioner need not treat himself as an aggrieved party. 2. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 15, 2011 Pankaj*