CWP No.20406 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.20406 of 2008 Date of Decision: 20.7.2010 Mohinder Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I,Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab, for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate for respondents no.4 to 7. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 16.6.2003, 23.6.2004 and 14.2.2008, passed by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, directing the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade to attest and sanction a mutation, on the basis of a registered will dated 9.1.1997, executed by Bogha Singh. Upon the demise of Bogha Singh, the private respondents set up a registered will and prayed before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Talwandi Sabo that a mutation be entered accordingly. However, the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade sanctioned the mutation on the basis of natural succession. Aggrieved by this order, the private respondents filed an CWP No.20406 of 2008 2 appeal. The Collector set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade and directed him to sanction the mutation in accordance with the registered will. An appeal and a revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner respectively, holding that revenue officers are obliged to honour a registered document, particularly a registered will. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner,who is one of the sons of Bogha Singh has been excluded and the execution of the will suffers from a large number of suspicious circumstances, the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner should have rejected the application for sanction of mutation on the basis of this false and fraudulent registered will. It is further submitted that as the petitioner has already filed a civil suit, mutation proceedings should be ordered to be kept in abeyance. Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that revenue officers exercise summary powers and, therefore, have no jurisdiction, when faced with a request for attestation of a mutation, on the basis of a registered document, particularly a will, to reject such an application. The impugned orders, directing the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade to sanction a mutation, on the basis of a registered will is legal and valid and, therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. While considering an application for sanction of a mutation, a revenue officer exercises powers under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, and where an application for mutation is contested, he CWP No.20406 of 2008 3 has to decide the dispute in accordance with Section 36 of the Act. A revenue officer by the very nature of his summary jurisdiction, is required to appraise the registered document summarily and after satisfying himself with respect to its validity, record a mutation, in respect thereof. Admittedly, Bogha Singh executed a registered will though excluding petitioner no.1. The will has been proved and it has been found as a matter of fact that the petitioner set up a collusive decree against his father, which was set aside as having been obtained by impersonating his deceased father. In addition, a civil suit with respect to the will is pending adjudication. In view of what has been stated herein above, the findings recorded in the impugned orders do not call for interference and the writ petition is dismissed. However, the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, while sanctioning a mutation shall append a note in the remarks column that a civil suit is pending adjudication with respect to the property in dispute. 20.7.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE