CWP No.6320 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.6320 of 2010 Date of Decision: 9.4.2010 Seema Devi @ Barno Devi .....Petitioner Vs. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Vinod K. Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for caveator-respondents no.2 and 3. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 29.10.2004 and 3.12.2009, passed by the Collector, Ropar and the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding recorded by the Financial Commissioner that the petitioner's marriage to one Gungroo disentitles her to claim any rights in the estate of Ujjagar Singh, is factually and legally incorrect, as there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner is the widow of Ujjagar Singh, deceased. The photographs, entries in the voter list, statement by Didar Singh, a brother of Ujjagar Singh deceased etc. clearly establish that Ujjagar Singh married the petitioner by way of a Karewa ceremony. In view of this overwhelming evidence, the Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, directing that a mutation be recorded in CWP No.6320 of 2010 2 the name of the petitioner. Counsel for the caveator respondents no.2 and 3 submits that the petitioner was married to one Ghungroo. In the absence of any decree of divorce, the Financial Commissioner rightly held that the petitioner cannot succeed to the estate of Ujjagar Singh, deceased. It is further submitted that as the petitioner has already filed a civil suit, which is pending adjudication before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar, the present petition should be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to interfere. The petitioner does not deny her marriage with Gungroo but claims that she obtained a customary divorce. Admittedly, the validity of the alleged divorce and the alleged Karewa with Ujaggar Singh are pending adjudication before a civil court. The Financial Commissioner, therefore, did not commit any error in taking the view that in the absence of any decree of divorce, mutation cannot be sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. The impugned orders do not call for interference. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. It is, however, made clear that findings recorded by the revenue officers being summary in nature, would not adversely affect the petitioner's rights in the pending civil suit. Though the principle of lis- pendens protects the petitioner's rights, it is directed that the revenue officer concerned shall append a note in the remarks column of the jamabandi that a civil suit is pending with respect to this property. No merit. Dismissed. 9.4.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE