IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.1159 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 20, 2011 GURJANT SINGH &ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, APPEALS-I, PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. PS Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. A.K. Sharma, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Suresh Singla, Advocate, for respondents 5 to 8. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 7.8.2008 (Annexure P-6), passed by Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab, whereby earlier order dated 30.1.2003 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Financial Commissioner in review proceedings, has been recalled and order dated 6.12.2001 (Annexure P-3), passed by Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, has been upheld. 2 The sequence of events and facts, leading to passing of the impugned order, needs to be noticed. 3 On the death of Amar Singh on 28.2.1993, mutation was required to be sanctioned and, therefore, Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Faridkot, was approached. Sanction of mutation on the Civil Writ Petition No.1159 of 2009 (O&M) 2 basis of natural succession was contested by respondents No.5 to 7, on the ground that Amar Singh had left an unregistered Will dated 5.12.1992 (at places mentioned as 5.11.1992). Assistant Collector Ist Grade, vide order dated 3.5.1995 (Annexure P-1), sanctioned the mutation of inheritance on the basis of natural succession, in equal share. The Will was not accepted. 4 Respondents No.5 to 7 went up in appeal before Collector, Faridkot. Vide order dated 31.1.1996 (Annexure P-2), the appeal was dismissed, while saying that the propounders of unregistered Will have been unable to produce any evidence to show genuineness of the Will and, therefore, the only inference that can be drawn by the revenue officer was that the Will was fabricated for grabbing the property of the deceased. 5 Respondents No.5 to 7 filed a revision petition before the Commissioner which, however, has been allowed vide order dated 6.12.2001 (Annexure P-3). The Commissioner accepted the case set up by respondents No.5 to 7 while saying that the revenue officer has to rely on the document because the intricate questions were to be settled by the court having competent jurisdiction. It has been said that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade could not have ignored the Will only on the ground that respondents No.5 to 7 could not lead any evidence to prove the Will. 6 Be that as it may, the petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land revenue Act, 1887 (for short 'the Act'), before the Financial Commissioner Civil Writ Petition No.1159 of 2009 (O&M) 3 (Appeals). The petitioners, at this point in time, produced judgment and decree dated 2.3.1998 rendered by a civil court having competent jurisdiction and placed on record of this petition as Annexure P-7. On the basis of the civil court decree and findings recorded in the judgment, vide order dated 30.1.2003 (Annexure P-4), the Financial Commissioner remanded the case to the Commissioner for fresh decision, in the light of civil court judgment and decree. 7 Respondents No.5 to 7 filed a review application, inter alia, on the ground that they had not been heard by the Financial Commissioner, while passing order (Annexure P-4). Secondly, it was pointed out that the revision petition had been filed by the petitioners (in this writ petition) before the Financial Commissioner beyond the period of limitation. The Financial Commissioner recalled earlier order dated 30.1.2003 (Annexure P-4), vide order dated 7.8.2008 (Annexure P-6). While passing order (Annexure P-6), the Financial Commissioner has only taken into account the technical ground to the effect that the earlier revision filed by the petitioners under Section 16 of the Act had been filed beyond the period of limitation and no notice had been issued to the other side. On the said premise, order passed by the Commissioner (Annexure P-3) has been upheld. 8 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the revenue authorities are required to follow the verdict given by the civil court and are required to make entries in the revenue record accordingly. In view of the said law, order (Annexure P-6), passed by the Financial Civil Writ Petition No.1159 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Commissioner, is arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the civil court has adjudicated on the issue of validity of the Will and returned a finding to the effect that the Will is not a genuine document. The order passed by the civil court has not been upset by any higher court and, therefore, has attained finality. 9 Learned counsel for respondents No.5 to 7 contends that the petitioners have filed a suit in which the Will has been challenged. The civil suit, however, is pending adjudication. 10 I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 11 The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, vide order (Annexure P-1) and the Collector vide order (Annexure P-2) have ignored the Will and sanctioned the mutation on the basis of natural succession, primarily on the ground that the propounders of the Will had not brought on record any evidence to show that the Will, which is an unregistered document, is a genuine document. It needs to be noticed that the unregistered Will is dated 5.12.1992, whereas Amar Singh died on 28.2.1993 i.e. in about three months time. The Commissioner, vide order (Annexure P-3), has accepted the Will, dehors the fact that it is unregistered and the propounders of the Will did not bring any evidence before the authorities. 12 The Financial Commissioner, vide order (Annexure P- 4), on consideration of the civil court judgment and decree (Annexure P-7), remanded the case to the Commissioner to take a decision in accordance with the civil court decision. It has Civil Writ Petition No.1159 of 2009 (O&M) 5 been noticed by this Court that notice was not given by the Financial Commissioner at the point in time when the revision petition was filed under Section 16 of the Act. Possibly so, because the judgment and decree passed by the civil court had been brought to the notice of the Financial Commissioner. The case was remanded to the Commissioner to adjudicate in view of the civil court decision. In review jurisdiction, the civil court decision has not been considered at all, while passing the impugned order (Annexure P-6). Merely on technicality of non- hearing the other side and because there was no decision in regard to limitation, the review application has been allowed, order (Annexure P-4) has been recalled and order (Annexure P- 3), passed by the Commissioner, has been upheld. 13 In my considered opinion, impugned order (Annexure P-6) has been passed in an arbitrary manner and without considering the relevant aspects of the matter. Substantial justice required the Financial Commissioner to at least consider the relevant aspects of the case viz. that a civil court had already adjudicated on the issue and had rendered a decision. At best, after hearing the parties, the case could have been remanded to the Commissioner for re-adjudicating the issue in the light of the civil court decision. The civil court decision could not have been ignored by the revenue authorities. 14 In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Order (Annexure P-6) is hereby quashed. The case is remanded to the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab, to re-adjudicate the issue in the light of the civil court judgment and decree Civil Writ Petition No.1159 of 2009 (O&M) 6 (Annexure P-7). 15 The parties, through their respective counsel, are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner, on 12.5.2011. April 20, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?