IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.8686 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 24, 2011. Surjit Kaur .....Petitioner versus Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the order dated 3.3.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals- 1), Punjab, whereby the revision petition of respondent No.2 has been accepted and the orders passed in favour of the petitioner by the Commissioner and Collector respectively, have been set-aside after observing that in the mutation proceedings the Revenue Officer is required to act upon the terms of a registered document and cannot exceed his jurisdiction to examine the validity of the Will and/or any other instrument alleged to have been executed to transfer the property. No exception can be taken to the view formed by the Financial Commissioner. The mutation does not confer any title and in the event of CWP No.8686 of 2011 [2] serious dispute in relation to the instrument whereupon the claim is set-up by one of the party, the appropriate course would be to relegate the parties to civil court. No interference is, therefore, called for in the impugned order. The writ petition stands dismissed. However, it shall not preclude the petitioner from approaching the Civil Court for an appropriate relief, if so permissible in law. May 24, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE