IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1129 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 19.04.2011 Veena Sehgal …..Appellant versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) CM Nos.3039 of 2009 and 3040 of 2009 In view of reasons mentioned in these applications, the same are allowed and delay in re-filing and filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.1129 of 2009(O&M) This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 3.3.2009, dismissing CWP No.3354 of 2009, filed by the appellant. In that writ petition, the appellant-petitioner has prayed for quashing of an order dated 12.8.2008, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Appeals, Punjab, allowing revision petition filed by the private respondents. In this appeal dispute between the parties is with regard to the inheritance of property, left behind by Mr.Ravinder Kumar Sehgal- LPA No.1129 of 2009(O&M) deceased. The appellant claims that she being a legally wedded wife of the deceased, is entitled to inherit his property, whereas the private respondents are claiming inheritance of the deceased being the class II legal heirs i.e. brothers and sisters. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, vide order dated 3.2.2006, ordered sanctioning of mutation, as per natural succession, in favour of the private respondents. Appellant went in appeal. The Collector, vide order dated 17.7.2006, disposed of the appeal by observing as under:- “After considering the arguments & counter arguments advanced by the contesting parties in the instant case, I am of the view that only one point is to be decided in this case & that is “Whether the appellant is the wife of the deceased in the eyes of law or not”. Where as the appellant has a strong case in her favour in view of the documents exhibited by her (discussed in Para 3 of the order), the respondents too have an equally strong logic in their claim (discussed in para 4 of the order). Mutation proceedings are summary in nature but here the question to be decided, to (further decide the mutation), regarding the appellant being the wife of the deceased in the eyes of law or not is an intricate question of & cannot be decided by me in these summary proceedings. It is equally true that before this issue is decided, no decision about the inheritance of the deceased can be taken. Hence I adjourn sine die this appeal with a direction to the appellant that she may approach a competent civil court & obtain a decree in her favour to the effect that she is the wife of the appellant in the eyes of law. Once the appellant obtains such a decree she can 2 LPA No.1129 of 2009(O&M) apply to this court & get this appeal reopened & decided in her favour. Also in interest of justice, I further order that the respondents shall NOT ALIENATE the suit land till the disposal of this appeal. They too can get reopened this appeal & get it decided in their favour if they obtain a decree that the appellant is not the wife of the deceased in the eyes of law. Halqa Patwari shall give a note in the Jamabandi regarding the non-alienation issue discussed above.” The appeal was adjourned sine die with a direction to the appellant that she may approach the competent Civil Court to get the question of title decided. The appellant went in revision before the Commissioner, which was accepted vide order dated 20.11.2007. A finding was given that she is the wife of deceased Ravinder Kumar Sehgal and mutation was ordered to be entered in her favour, as directed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. The private respondents went in revision, which was accepted by the respondent No.1 on 12.8.2008, orders passed by the Commissioner and the Collector, mentioned above were set aside and that of the Assistant Collector Grade-I was restored. It was observed as under:- “I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record. I find that the Assistant Collector, Grade-I had passed a detailed order after discussing the pros and cons and issue regarding Veena Rani, alleged wife of the deceased. The Assistant Collector, Grade-I had clearly held that Vena Rani’s divorce with her husband through Panchayat was not legally valid in view of Supreme Court ruling which was cited by the Tehsildar. The learned counsel for the respondent, 3 LPA No.1129 of 2009(O&M) Veena Rani Sehgal tried to argue that adequate documentary evidence was produced before the Assistant Collector, Grade-I regarding divorce of Veena Rani before the village Panchayat, from her previous husband and reference was made to copies of the voter list and entries in LIC policy papers. On being point out by learned counsel for the petitioner, it turned out that the alleged marriage between Veena Rani Sehgal and the deceased Ravinder Kumar Sehgal was reportedly carried out in the year 1995 whereas the voter list for the year 1999 contained the name of Veena Rani Sehgal as wife of Ravinder Kumar son of Amrit Lal (previous husband). The learned counsel for the respondent was unable to explain this contradiction. His plea that the Collector be directed to pas a final order rather than adjourning the case as sine die, is not acceptable as the Commissioner infact had over ruled the order of the Collector and sanctioned the mutation in favour of the respondent which automatically made the order of the Collector null and void. I find that the Assistant Collector, Grade-I was fully justified in ignoring the claim of the respondent as wife of the deceased, Sh.Ravinder Kumar Sehgal and sanctioned the mutation in favour of the petitioner being Class-II heirs. The respondent is at liberty to seek suitable remedy in the civil Court. Accordingly, the order of the Commissioner and the Collector are set aside and the order of the Assistant Collector, Grade-I is maintained. Announced.” 4 LPA No.1129 of 2009(O&M) Thereafter, she came in a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 3.3.2009. The learned Single Judge came to a conclusion that until and unless question of title is decided between the parties, it will not be desirable to enter mutation in the name of the appellant. It was rightly noted that as to whether the appellant is a legally wedded wife of the deceased Ravinder Kumar Sehgal, she has to prove it in a competent Court of law by producing evidence. It is not in dispute that before her marriage with the deceased, she was married to somebody else and as per her own admitted case, she got divorce under customs from her previous husband. Under the circumstances, we feel that before mutation is entered in the name of the appellant, it is necessary to look into the validity of her marriage with the deceased and for that purpose, it is necessary to lead evidence before a competent Civil Court. It has also been brought to our notice that the Civil Court is seized of the matter. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. Any observation made by the learned Single Judge and by this Court on merits of the dispute shall not affect the parties in the litigation before the Civil Court. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 19.04.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 5