In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.9697 of 2006 ..... Date of decision:8.7.2009 Satish Kumar and others .....Petitioners v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. O.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sudhir Makkar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for respondent No.5. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 6.6.2006 (Annexure-P.4) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana (respondent No.1), the order dated 19.5.2005 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the learned Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (respondent No.2) and the order dated 14.9.1999 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Farrukhanagar (respondent No.4). A further prayer is made for upholding the order dated 30.12.2003 (Annexure- P.2) passed by the learned Collector, Gurgaon (respondent No.3) with respect to mutation No.1517. The dispute in the present case relates to the estate of the deceased Jagpal who died in the year 1999. On his death mutation No.1517 C.W.P. No.9697 of 2006 [2] of Village Patli Haripur, District Sonepat was entered. Vide order dated 14.9.1999 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Gurgaon mutation was sanctioned in the name of Satish Kumar (petitioner No.1), Smt. Pushpa Devi (petitioner No.2), Sarla Devi (petitioner No.3) being the son and daughters respectively of Jagpal and also in favour of Sheela Devi (respondent No.5) being the widow of Jagpal to the extent of ¼ share each. The claim of the petitioners is that in fact Smt. Sheela Devi (respondent No.5) is not the widow of Jagpal and she in fact is the wife of Rajbir son of Jai Singh, resident of Bayianpur, District Sonepat. Therefore, she has no right to inherit or succeed to the property of Jagpal. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that Rajbir son of Jai Singh with whom Smt. Sheela Devi (respondent No.5) is married is still alive and no divorce has been effected between Smt. Sheela Devi (respondent No.5) and her husband Rajbir son of Jai Singh. Therefore, it is submitted that the orders dated 6.6.2006 (Annexure-P.4), dated 19.5.2005 (Annexure-P.3) and 14.9.1999 (Annexure- P.1) sanctioning mutation in favour of Smt. Sheela Devi (respondent No.5) to the extent of ¼ share are erroneous and liable to be quashed. It is submitted that the revenue authorities have gravely erred in sanctioning mutation in favour of Smt. Sheela Devi (respondent No.5). In fact, it is submitted that the Collector, Gurgaon (respondent No.3) had correctly decided the matter vide his order dated 30.12.2003 (Annexure-P.2). In response, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has submitted that Smt. Sheela Devi wife of Jagpal is the widow of deceased Jagpal and she is entitled to succeed to his estate. It is submitted that the marriage between Smt. Sheela Devi (respondent No.5) and her husband C.W.P. No.9697 of 2006 [3] Rajbir has been dissolved in proceedings of the panchayat. A reference is made to the ration card (Annexure-R.1), the summons (Annexure-R.2) issued by the Civil Judge, Gurgaon, the Police report of Police Station Farrukhanagar dated 25.1.2003 (Annexure-R.3), the certificate (Annexure- R.4) issued by respectables of the village and panchayat, voters list (Annexure-R.5) and the nomination form for family pension dated 14.5.1991 (Annexure-R.6) wherein Jagpal had nominated Smt. Sheela Devi as his wife for the purpose of family pension. Therefore, it is submitted that the revenue authorities have correctly decided the mutation and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the purpose and object of sanctioning mutation is to keep the entries of record of rights upto date. Mutation proceedings before the revenue authorities by themselves do not determine any question or right between the parties. The mutation proceedings also do not have judicial character as their object is to keep the record straight so that the payment of revenue can be secured. These in no manner settle a right of the parties. Besides, the said proceedings would not, in any manner, determine the status of Smt. Sheela Devi as widow of deceased Jagpal. It is settled law that mutation proceedings being summary in nature, the revenue authorities are not to go into the intricate questions of law and leave the matter to be determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction which is normally a Civil Court which has to adjudicate upon and decide the question and status of relationship. This Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not to go into disputed questions of facts and on the strength of the documents as produced C.W.P. No.9697 of 2006 [4] determine the question whether Smt. Sheela Devi (respondent No.5) is the widow of the deceased Jagpal. For that is a matter to be considered and gone into by the Civil Court. The parties are ad idem that the civil suit has already been filed by the petitioners. However, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the same was dismissed in default and an application for restoration of the same has been filed which is pending. Respondent No.5 in the meantime on the strength of the mutation entries was taking steps to alienate the property and thereby deprive the petitioners of their rightful claim by creating third party interest. Besides, respondent No.5 was also taking steps to create encumbrance on the property. It is for the said purpose that the present civil writ petition was filed. Be that as it may, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has submitted that in fact after the dismissal of the civil suit filed by the petitioners they filed an application for seeking restoration after almost nine months and, therefore, they are deliberately delaying the proceedings in the civil suit. It is submitted that the civil suit be decided expeditiously in a time bound manner and in the mean time it is fairly stated by learned counsel for respondent No.5 that respondent No.5 Smt. Sheela Devi would not alienate the property or create any encumbrance or third party interest. It is also stated that respondent No.5 Smt. Sheela Devi shall not raise any objection to the revival of the civil suit which has been dismissed in default. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid position, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the mutation entries shall stand in the revenue record as they are i.e. the petitioners and respondent No.5 shall continue to be recorded as ¼ owner in equal share till the rights are C.W.P. No.9697 of 2006 [5] determined by the Civil Court. The civil suit filed by the petitioners shall be revived for which respondent No.5 has already stated that she would not raise any objection. Thereafter, the learned trial Court shall proceed to consider and dispose of the civil suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within one year from the date the parties put in appearance. The parties through their counsel shall appear before the trial Court on 10.8.2009. July 8, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No