CWP No.10157 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.10157 of 2009 Date of Decision: 8.4.2010 Jaswant Kaur .....Petitioner Vs. Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the caveator/respondent. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 22.12.2003, 29.9.2005, 11.7.2006 and 10.2.2009, passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Gurgaon, the Collector, Ludhiana, the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Harminderjit Singh, deceased, executed a will dated 31.3.2001 bequeathing his entire estate to his mother (the petitioner) and his daughter. Revenue authorities have wrongly refused to record a mutation on the grounds that the will is unregistered and that it is not referred to in the compromise between the parties. It is further submitted that as Harminderjit Singh's widow has remarried, revenue officers should have accepted the will. CWP No.10157 of 2009 2 I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and find no reason to hold in favour of the petitioner. The Collector, the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the unregistered will dated 31.3.2001 is shrouded by suspicious circumstances. Apart from the fact that the will is not referred to in the compromise recorded between the parties, there was no apparent reason for the deceased to have excluded his young wife from his estate. In addition, revenue officers have recorded a finding that signatures on the will do not tally with the admitted signatures of the deceased and entries in the register reflecting purchase of stamp papers are suspicious etc. The argument that revenue officers should not have rejected the will as the widow has remarried, cannot be accepted. A widow who remarries does not loose rights in her deceased husband's estate. The argument that revenue officers had no jurisdiction to opine about the validity of the will disregards the powers conferred by Section 36 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by revenue officers, the present petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 8.4.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE