CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10753 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 Gurjinder Singh and another .....Petitioners VERSUS The Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A. S. Jattana, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the State. Mr. M. S. Lobana, Advocate, for respondent Nos.5 and 6. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 9.4.2010 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, and so also the order passed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and the order passed by the Collector, Kapurthala. The prayer of the petitioner for mutation of the land has been declined through these orders and these are accordingly impugned by the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10753 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: petitioner through the present writ petition. One Jagir Singh during his life time executed a registered will on 23.2.1998, bequeathing his property in favour of Piar Kaur to the extent of 1/5th share and his 4 sons, Malkiat Singh, Palwinder Singh, Mastan Singh and Gurmeet Singh. One daughter and a son disinherited for valid reasons disclosed in the will. After his death, mutation on the basis of inheritance was entered on 23.1.2003 on the basis of the will. This was attested by Halqa Kanungo. Assistant Collector Grade II, Bholath, sanctioned the mutation on the basis of registered will on 24.3.2003. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed an appeal against this order and the Collector accepted the same on 5.4.2004. The mutation was declared contested. The petitioner accordingly produced attesting witnesses of the will before Assistant Collector Grade I. Since the original will had been lost, an application was filed for producing the secondary evidence. The petitioner also produced Registration Clerk, who proved the execution of the will. Thus, the petitioner sufficiently discharged his burden. As per the petitioner, the respondents failed to rebut the evidence. The petitioner would also plead that registered documents deserve to be given effect to. Still the Assistant Collector Grade I discarded the registered will. Rather, it is stated that the revenue authorities have no option but to give effect to the registered documents. The Collector dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in a mechanical manner on 27.4.2005. The revisions were dismissed by the Commissioner as well as by the Financial Commissioner on 5.4.2006 and 9.2.2010 respectively. The petitioner accordingly has filed this writ petition. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10753 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: Contesting respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed reply. It is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable and no case for judicial review of the impugned order is made out. As per the respondents, father of the petitioner, Mastan Singh, had submitted a duly sworn affidavit dated 6.3.2007 before Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, when the ROR titled Mastan Singh and others Vs. Nishan Singh and others, was pending and had, thus, entered into a compromise with the contesting respondent, Nishan Singh and Surinder Kaur (respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the present case), stating that he did not wish to pursue the case any further and he will have no objection if the case qua him be consigned to record. Thus, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had given up the challenge to the order of the three revenue officers and, thus, discarded the disputed `will' of his father, Jagir Singh through which he had purported to exclude the answering respondents. As per the answering respondents, the petitioner being his successor-in-interest would have no locus to challenge the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner and hence, this writ petition is totally misconceived. Once the father of the petitioner had given up a challenge in a pending revision before the Financial Commissioner, the petitioner, being his successor-in-interest, can not be permitted to challenge the order, which is almost passed on the basis of compromise. The Financial Commissioner even has doubted the authenticity of the will, original of which was not produced. No doubt, the will was not under challenge and it was not being contested for the said purpose but once the petitioner had relied upon the will, the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10753 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: Financial Commissioner was required to deal with the issue and, thus, may be justified in saying that the will can not be relied upon in the absence of original having not been produced. I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned orders, which are just, legal and fair. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. September 26, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE