CWP No. 7690 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7690 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: April 05, 2011 Ashok Kumar .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab, Chandigarh and others ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Ms. Gurnam Kaur Turka, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Vikas Mehesempuri, Advocate, for respondent no. 5. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. The sequence of events as given by learned counsel for the petitioner and admitted by learned counsel for the private respondent is that in regard to Khasra No. 495, 1/9th share of the land owned by Kartari Devi was given in favour of the petitioner through a collusive decree dated 07.01.1991. In tune with the judgment and decree dated 07.01.1991, Mutation No. 2767 was sanctioned in the year 1991 itself. Kartari Devi died on 04.10.1994. 2. Respondent no. 5, on the basis of Will dated 02.08.1990, got a mutation entered. Thereafter, there arose a dispute between the private respondent and the petitioner. A civil suit in regard to another property was CWP No. 7690 of 2010 2 instituted by respondent no. 5. Respondent no. 5 claimed property under Will purportedly executed by Kartari Devi on 02.08.1990. It is the admitted position that the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.01.1999. The first appeal has also been dismissed vide judgment dated 14.12.2001. 3. Entry in mutation has been reverted by the revenue authorities on 03.01.2000 back in favour of the petitioner in view of judgment and decree of the Civil Court under which Will dated 02.08.1990 had been discarded, vide order Annexure P-6 dated 16.06.2003 passed by Collector, Sub Division Rajpura. Respondent no. 5 filed an appeal before the Commissioner, which has been dismissed vide order Annexure P-7 dated 27.04.2006. Respondent no. 5 carried an appeal, which has been allowed vide impugned order Annexure P-8 dated 04.12.2008. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgment and decree dated 30.01.1999, as upheld by the First Appellate Court, has determined the veracity of the Will dated 02.08.1990. The Will has been discarded by the Civil Court. In such circumstances, no notice of the Will could be taken and, therefore, order passed by the Financial Commissioner is against settled principles of law and facts available on record. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 5 contends that there is no adjudication in regard to the Will in the Civil Court judgment. Learned counsel further states that Regular Second Appeal is pending adjudication which would finally decide the issue of title. This Court, in Regular Second Appeal, would finally adjudicate in regard to the rights of the parties and, therefore, order passed by the Financial Commissioner is in accordance with law. CWP No. 7690 of 2010 3 6. The Civil Court judgment has been placed on record as Annexure P-2 dated 30.01.1999 entitled Lajwanti vs. Smt. Ram Murti, Ashok Kumar and others. Perusal of para no. 10 of the judgment discloses that indeed respondent no. 5, as plaintiff in the suit, relied on Will dated 02.08.1990 and made an attempt to prove the Will. None of the attesting witnesses to the Will, however, was produced. In such circumstances, it has been held in para no. 11 of the judgment that respondent no. 5 had failed to prove the Will dated 02.08.1990 as required by law under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. In view of the said findings, the Collector and Commissioner have directed sanction of Mutation in favour of the petitioner. Clearly, the Financial Commissioner has erred in law in ignoring the finding recorded in Civil Court judgment. This is particularly so because proceedings in regard to sanction of mutation are summary in nature. The Revenue authorities are required to follow the findings recorded by the Civil Court. 7. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Order Annexure P-8 dated 04.12.2008 is hereby quashed while upholding order passed by the Commissioner viz. order Annexure P-7 dated 27.04.2006. 8. It is made clear that after decision of the Regular Second Appeal, the party in whose favour the title is settled, would be at liberty to approach the Revenue Authorities for change in revenue record. 05.04.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?