In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.18180 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:27.11.2009 Dalbir Singh and another .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The dispute in the present petition relates to the estate of Santu Lal, father of the petitioners. It is stated that said Santu Lal executed a Will dated 6.6.2003 bequeathing his property in favour of the petitioners. After the demise of Santu Lal-father of the petitioners, mutation of his inheritance was entered on the basis of natural succession. The petitioners filed an application before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Narwana for sanction of mutation on the basis of the Will of Santu Lal deceased. Saroj Devi (respondent No.4) daughter of Santu Lal contested the Will. Mutation was accordingly declared contested and the mutation case was referred to the Assistant Collector Grade I, Narwana who vide order dated 14.6.2005 C.W.P. No.18180 of 2009 [2] (Annexure-P.1) sanctioned mutation on the basis of the Will of Santu Lal. It was held that the objector (Saroj Devi-respondent No.4) who was claiming the Will to be forged did not produce any cogent evidence in support of her contention. Saroj Devi (respondent No.4) aggrieved against the said order filed an appeal before the Collector District, Jind (respondent No.3) who vide order dated 13.9.2005 (Annexure P2) remanded the case to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narwana with the direction to decide the case afresh on the basis of merits and demerits after giving full opportunity to the parties. The Assistant Collector Grade I in consequence of the order of remand vide order dated 24.1.2006 (Annexure-P.3) held the execution of the Will to be proved and ordered sanction of mutation as per the Will. It was further observed that if the objector (Saroj Devi-respondent No.4) was not satisfied with the decision, she could approach civil Court as per law. Saroj Devi (respondent No.4) aggrieved against the said order filed an appeal before the Collector, District Jind (respondent No.3) who vide order dated 16.5.2006 (Annexure P4) dismissed the appeal and held that the dispute regarding genuineness of the Will is to be decided by the competent Court (Civil Court). Saroj Devi (respondent No.4) aggrieved against the order of the Collector, Jind assailed the said order before the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (respondent No.2) who on the basis of evidence and material on record held the Will to be not proved. Accordingly, the order dated 24.1.2006 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Narwana and the order dated 16.5.2006 (Annexure-P.4) passed by the Collector, Jind were set aside. The mutation No.1071 of Village Khanpur of the estate of Santu Lal deceased was ordered to be sanctioned in favour C.W.P. No.18180 of 2009 [3] of the legal heirs. The petitioners aggrieved against the said order filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No.1) who vide order dated 26.8.2009 (Annexure-P.6) has dismissed the same. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners who are the sons of Santu Lal seek quashing of the aforesaid orders dated 9.6.2008 (Annexure P5) and 26.8.2009 (Annexure P6) passed by the Commissioner Hisar Division, Hisar (respondent No.2) and Financial Commissioner Haryana (respondent No.1) respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioners has inter alia contended that in case the mutation was liable to be sanctioned on the basis of the Will and in case Saroj Devi (respondent No.4) was aggrieved against the order sanctioning mutation on the basis of the Will dated 6.6.2003 executed by Santu Lal in favour of the petitioners then she was liable to challenge the same in the civil Court. It is further submitted that the Financial Commissioner in terms of his order dated 26.8.2009 (Annexure P6) has not recorded any reasons for dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. It is well known that proceedings regarding sanction of mutation are summary in nature and entry in the revenue record on the basis of mutation does not confer title. In Balwant Singh and another v. Daulat Singh (dead) by L.Rs. and others, AIR 1997 SC 2719 wherein reliance was placed on an earlier decision in Smt. Sawarni v. Smt. Inder Kaur, JT 1996 (7) SC 580, it was observed as follows:- “Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or C.W.P. No.18180 of 2009 [4] extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment.” Therefore, the mutation proceedings are for fiscal purposes. Even otherwise in case a person is aggrieved against an entry in the revenue record, he is to assail the same in terms of Section 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (as applicable in Haryana) (“Act” - for short) which provides for a suit for declaratory decree by a person aggrieved by an entry in the revenue record. It is envisaged therein that if any person considers himself aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession by an entry in a record-of-rights, or in an annual record, he may institute a suit for a declaration under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (now 1963). Besides, it is for the propounder of the Will to satisfy regarding the genuineness of the Will by leading evidence. In order to prove and establish a Will, evidence is to be led by examining the marginal witnesses of the Will and may be even the scribe; besides, other evidence. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. This Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not to embark upon an inquiry, collect evidence and record findings with regard to the validity of Will executed by Santu Lal, which has been set up by the petitioners and claim that they are the C.W.P. No.18180 of 2009 [5] beneficiaries of the same. A Will is to be proved in the manner provided for by the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. This entire exercise is to be carried out in the civil Court and not in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, in case the petitioners are aggrieved against the entries in the revenue record, which have been made, they may, if so advised, approach the civil Court. This Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is not to adjudicate upon the genuineness or otherwise of the Will which is to be proved by the propounder by leading evidence. As regards the contention that Saroj Devi (respondent No.4) was liable to approach the Civil Court, it may be noticed that she assailed the order dated 16.5.2006 (Annexure P4) passed by the District Collector, Jind (respondent No.3) before the Commissioner Hisar Division, Hisar (respondent No.2). A right of appeal was available to Saroj Devi (respondent No.4) in terms of Section 13 (b) of the Act. Therefore, Saroj Devi (respondent No.4) having exercised her statutory rights of filing an appeal, it cannot be said that she was liable to seek her remedy before the civil Court. It is the person aggrieved from the entry in the revenue record who is to seek his remedy in the civil Court in terms of Section 45 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that Saroj Devi (respondent No.4) was to seek her remedy in the civil Court. As regards the contention that the Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1) has not recorded reasons for dismissing the revision petition, it may be noticed that the Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1) in his order dated 26.8.2009 (Annexure P6) has found no infirmity and irregularity in the order passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (respondent No.2) on 9.6.2008 (Annexure P5) and he has fully agreed C.W.P. No.18180 of 2009 [6] with the same. The said reasoning in the facts and circumstances is just and reasonable as the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (respondent No.2) in his order dated 9.6.2008 (Annexure P5) has recorded the detailed reasons as regards the suspicious circumstances in the unregistered Will set up by the petitioners. It was also observed that if there is a doubt in the genuineness of an unregistered Will, the proper course for Revenue Officer is to ignore such a document and leave the claimant to establish his claim through a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. This is what has been done by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (respondent No.2) and affirmed by the Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1). Therefore, the said order would not warrant any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court as it is the civil Court which is the competent forum to adjudicate upon such matters. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. Saron) November 27, 2009. Judge *hsp*/amit NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No