Civil Revision No.1188 of 2008 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1188 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: July 14, 2009. Narinder Singh @ Swaran Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Smt. Tej Kaur & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Naresh Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Bipan Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): Invoking the powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 8.2.2008 and 15.2.2008 (Annexures P-10 and P-11) passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade, Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) whereby in the proceedings regarding correction of mutation the petitioner's evidence, has been ordered to be closed and the said authority has decided to continue with the proceedings even during the pendency of the civil suit filed by the petitioner. The controversy pertains to the proprietary and possessory Civil Revision No.1188 of 2008 -: 2 :- rights over the estate of one Gurbax singh, whose widow (Smt. Tej Kaur) is claimed to have adopted the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he is known as Swaran Singh as well as Narinder Singh by birth and has inherited the property of Gurbax singh in the said name of Narinder Singh @ Swaran Singh. On the other hand, the contesting respondents claim that the adopted son of Smt. Tej Kaur had also unfortunately expired and the petitioner is an impersonator. According to them, Smt. Tej Kaur herself has refused to accept the petitioner as her adopted son. Suffice it to say that a disputed questions of fact, like as to whether or not the petitioner is the same Swaran Singh @ Narinder Singh who was adopted by Smt. Tej Kaur, can be decided by a civil court only. The petitioner has admittedly approached the civil court, who, vide its order dated 28.1.2008 has directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding alienation of the subject property. Even before that, the respondents have applied to the Assistant Collector First Grade for correction of the revenue record/sanctioning of mutation on the premise that the adopted son of Smt. Tej Kaur had expired and a death certificate to the that effect has been produced in those proceedings. According to the respondents, the petitioner was accorded sufficient opportunities to lead his evidence but having failed to do so, the the Assistant Collector First Grade has decided to close his evidence and proceed with the mutation proceedings even during pendency of the civil suit. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and the impugned orders have been perused. Civil Revision No.1188 of 2008 -: 3 :- During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the contesting respondents states at the bar and undertakes that till the controversy is finally settled by the civil court, the respondents shall not alienate or transfer the suit property in any manner. Similarly, the respondents shall keep the subject land free from all types of incumbrances and shall not change its nature. He also does not dispute the well settled proposition of law that the sanctioning of mutation does not and cannot confer any right upon the parties as the title dispute can be decided by the civil court only. In view of the afore-given undertaking and keeping in view the fact that the decision to be taken by the Assistant Collector First Grade shall have no bearing on the title of the property which shall be independently decided by the civil court only, the revision petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned order whereby the petitioner's evidence has been closed by the Assistant Collector First Grade is set aside and the said authority is directed to grant two opportunities more to the petitioner to lead his evidence. The Assistant Collector First Grade may decide the pending proceedings, however, it shall be imperative upon him to mention in the final order that the parties shall abide by the decision of the civil court. Disposed of. Dasti. July 14, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge