CWP No.12509 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.12509 of 2009 Date of Decision: 2.3.2010 Gurnam Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I) and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 4.12.2008, passed by the Financial Commissioner affirming the order dated 26.9.2001, passed by the Collector and setting aside the order dated 12.10.2009, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala. The dispute in brief relates to inheritance to the estate of one Sarwan Singh,who died issueless. The petitioner claimed that as Hardam Singh and Sadhu Singh are real brothers of Sarwan Singh, his estate would devolve upon them in equal shares. The respondents, however, pleaded that as Sadhu Singh and Hardam Singh were not alive on the date of the death of Sarwan Singh, the petitioner and the private respondents would be entitled to 1/8th share each in the estate of Sarwan Singh. CWP No.12509 of 2009 2 After considering the dispute in its entirety, the Collector directed the recording of a mutation reflecting 1/8th share of the petitioner and the private respondents. The Commissioner, however, set aside this order. In a revision filed by the private respondents, the Financial Commissioner has restored the order passed by the Collector. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as Sadhu Singh, Hardam Singh and Sarwan Singh were real brothers, the property would have to devolve upon Sadhu Singh and Hardam Singh, in equal shares. The learned Financial Commissioner, therefore, had no jurisdiction to direct devolution of the property belonging to Sarwan Singh in 1/8th share each. It is further submitted that the private respondents should be restrained from alienating the property in dispute. Heard. I have perused the orders passed by the Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner and find no reason to hold that the Financial Commissioner or the Collector committed any error. A significant fact that would determine succession to the estate of Sarwan Singh is whether Sadhu Singh and Hardam Singh were alive on the date Sarwan Singh passed away. Admittedly, this matter is pending adjudication before this court in RSA No.1955 of 2007. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not produced any evidence to establish that Sadhu Singh and Hardam Singh were alive, when Sarwan Singh passed away. The orders passed by the Collector and the Financial Commissioner,therefore, do not call for interference. It is, however, made clear that the orders passed by revenue authorities shall not be construed to be a binding opinion as to the rights of the parties. CWP No.12509 of 2009 3 Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed, with liberty, however, to the petitioner to file an appropriate application in the pending second appeal for redressal of his grievance that the private respondents may not alienate or encumber the property in dispute. 2.3.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE