In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.20063 of 2006 ..... Date of decision:13.10.2009 Gursharanjit Singh and another .....Petitioners v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Surjit Singh Swaich, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.S. Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 6. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 28.8.2006 (Annexure-P.4) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab (respondent No.1), the order dated 14.12.2004 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar (respondent No.2) and the order dated 4.12.2002 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Collector, Amritsar and for restoring the order dated 21.12.2001 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Baba Bakala, District Amritsar (respondent No.4). The dispute in the present case relates to the estate of Kuldip Singh son of Fauja Singh who, it is stated, died in a Police encounter on 25.6.1992. Mutation No.1237 of his land was entered in favour of his C.W.P. No.20063 of 2006 [2] mother Smt. Ishar Kaur widow of Fauja Singh being the only Class-I heir of deceased Kuldip Singh. Smt. Soma sister of Kuldip Singh (deceased) propounded an unregistered Will dated 28.12.1991 (Annexure-P.5) executed by Kuldip Singh. The learned Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Baba Bakala (respondent No.4) did not accept the said Will and in terms of his order dated 21.12.2001 (Annexure-P.1) sanctioned mutation of inheritance of Kuldip Singh in favour of Smt. Ishar Kaur, mother of the deceased. Smt. Soma aggrieved against the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Baba Bakala filed an appeal before the Collector, Amritsar who vide order dated 4.12.2002 (Annexure-P.2) accepted the appeal and sanctioned mutation of inheritance of Kuldip Singh in favour of Smt. Soma on the basis of the unregistered Will dated 28.12.1991 (Annexure-P.5) of Kuldip Singh. Dalbir Kaur (respondent No.7), the daughter-in-law of Smt. Ishar Kaur claimed the property of Smt. Ishar Kaur after her demise on 29.12.2002 on the basis of Will dated 16.10.2002 executed by Smt. Ishar Kaur. She (Dalbir Kaur) filed an appeal against the order dated 4.12.2002 (Annexure-P.2) before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, who vide order dated 14.12.2004 (Annexure-P.3) dismissed the same. It was observed that the Will dated 28.12.1991 in favour of Smt. Soma had been satisfactorily proved through corroborative evidence of the marginal witnesses. It was further observed that the mutation proceedings are of a summary nature and sanction of mutation does not confer any title and the same is meant to straighten the revenue record. Besides, the appellant (Dalbir Kaur) if so advised, it was observed, could seek her remedy in civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Dalbir Kaur (respondent No.7) aggrieved against the order of C.W.P. No.20063 of 2006 [3] the Commissioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab who vide order dated 28.8.2006 (Annexure-P.4) dismissed the same. Aggrieved against the same the petitioners Gursharanjit Singh and Ravinder Kaur who assert themselves to be purchasers of the land vide two sale deeds dated 15.4.2002 and 18.12.2002 from Smt. Ishar Kaur have filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the Will dated 28.12.1991 (Annexure-P.5) said to be executed by Kuldip Singh is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and, therefore, no reliance was liable to be placed on the same. It is contended that the question of validity of the Will involves intricate questions which were not liable to be gone into by the revenue authorities. Therefore, the revenue authorities were liable to leave the matter to be decided by the civil Court. A reference has been made to the Will dated 28.12.1991 (Annexure-P.5), besides, a reference has been made to the statement (Annexure-P.7) of the marginal witness Bakhshish Singh (RW-1) and the statement (Annexure-P.8) of Joginder Singh Namberdar (RW-2). Besides, a reference has also been made to the statement (Annexure-P.9) of Smt. Soma (RW-3). It is also contended that the civil suit filed by Smt. Soma on 6.12.2001 has been withdrawn by her. Therefore, the mutation of inheritance of Kuldip Singh in the revenue records was not liable to be entered on the basis of the Will dated 28.12.1991 (Annexure-P.5) said to be in favour of Smt. Soma. It is submitted that the evidence of the attesting witnesses would show that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in their testimonies, which show that the Will dated 28.12.1991 is a forged Will and the same was not C.W.P. No.20063 of 2006 [4] liable to be accepted. In response, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 and 6 who are sons of Smt. Soma has contended that the Will dated 28.12.1991 is valid and legal and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the revenue authorities in sanctioning the mutation on the strength of the said Will. It is submitted that the petitioners in fact claim that they are purchasers of the land from Smt. Ishar Kaur and that the land was purchased by them on 15.4.2002 and 18.12.2002. However, it is submitted that despite the fact that the land has been purchased by them, they took no steps to get the mutation entered in their favour and they did not contest or join the mutation proceedings which were pending before the Collector, Amritsar as the matter was decided by the Collector on 4.12.2002 (Annexure-P.2). Besides, no steps were taken by them to join the proceedings before the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, Revenue. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the mutation which has been validly sanctioned on the basis of Will dated 28.12.1991. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record of the case. The dispute in the present case relates to the sanction of mutation of inheritance of Kuldip Singh who died in a Police encounter on 25.6.1992. On his demise, the Halqa Patwari entered mutation No.1237 regarding inheritance of Kuldip Singh in the revenue record which was put up before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Baba Bakala on 6.8.2001 after getting the necessary verifications from the Halqa Kanungo. Then Smt. Soma, the sister of the deceased Kuldip Singh filed objections against the C.W.P. No.20063 of 2006 [5] sanction of mutation on the basis of inheritance by moving an application setting up an unregistered Will. The Assistant Collector declared the mutation as a contested one and referred the same to the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade in terms of order dated 21.12.2001 (Annexure-P.1) did not accept the Will to be genuine and accordingly mutation of inheritance of Kuldip Singh was sanctioned in favour of Smt. Ishar Kaur, mother of Kuldip Singh (deceased) on the basis of natural succession. Against the said order Smt. Soma filed an appeal which was accepted by the Collector vide order dated 4.12.2002 (Annexure- P.2) and the Will dated 28.12.1991 (Annexure-P.5) was held to be satisfactorily proved. Smt. Ishar Kaur died on 29.12.2002. Dalbir Kaur the daughter-in-law of Smt. Ishar Kaur then filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar which was dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2004 (Annexure-P.3). The revision petition of Smt. Dalbir Kaur before the Financial Commissioner was dismissed on 28.8.2006 (Annexure-P.4). Now the present writ petition has been filed by the vendees of Smt. Ishar Kaur claiming that they had purchased the land vide sale deeds dated 15.4.2002 and 18.12.2002. They assail the orders Annexures-P.2, P.3 and P.4 on the ground that the same have been passed on a mis-appreciation of evidence. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the deposition of Bakhshish Singh (RW-1) (Annexure-P.7) and that of Joginder Singh Namberdar (RW-2) (Annexure-P.8) clearly show that the Will in question is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Besides, Smt. Soma (RW-3) in her statement (Annexure-P.9) has not been able to explain the Will that has been set up. A pointed reference has been made to the C.W.P. No.20063 of 2006 [6] application dated 25.7.2001 (Annexure-P.6) stated to have been filed by Smt. Soma before the Tehsildar, Baba Bakala wherein it is mentioned that there was no dispute between both the parties regarding the date of death and, therefore, the Halqa Patwari may be directed to enter mutation of Kuldip Singh by writing the date of death as 29.6.1992 and the same may be produced. It is submitted that in the said application (Annexure-P.6), Smt. Soma has not made any reference to the Will dated 28.12.1991. In fact, the said Will has been set-up after 9½ years of the death of Kuldip Singh. Therefore, the Will is not liable to be accepted. In this regard, it may be noticed that this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not to go into the disputed questions of facts or appreciate the evidence that has been led in mutation proceedings and adjudicate upon the same. On the basis of the orders that have been passed by the revenue authorities only mutation has been sanctioned in the revenue records. Section 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (`Act' – for short) provides for the procedure for making records. In terms of Section 34 of the Act it is provided for making of that part of the annual record which relates to land-owners, assignees of revenue and occupancy tenants. It is provided therein that any person acquiring, by inheritance, purchase, mortgage, or otherwise, any right in an estate as a land-owner, assignee of land-revenue or tenant having a right of occupancy, shall report his acquisition of the right to the patwari of the estate. The Patwari shall enter in his register of mutations every report made to him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), and shall also make an entry therein respecting the acquisition of any such C.W.P. No.20063 of 2006 [7] right as aforesaid which he has reason to believe to have taken place, and of which a report should have been made to him under one or other of those sub-sections. The entry of mutation as is well known is only for fiscal purpose and for maintaining revenue records. It does not determine the title. In Balwant Singh and another v. Daulat Singh (dead) by LRs and others, (1997) 7 SCC 137, has been held that mutation proceedings are for fiscal purpose. Reliance was placed on an earlier decision in Smt. Sawarni v. Smt. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223 (at page 227, para 7) wherein it has been observed as follows:- “7. ... Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. The learned Additional District Judge was wholly in error in coming to a conclusion that mutation in favour of Inder Kaur conveys title in her favour. This erroneous conclusion has vitiated the entire judgment.” Therefore, the mutation proceedings being for fiscal purpose do not, therefore, confer any title. In case any clouds are cast on the rights of a person he is to assert his rights before the civil Court. Besides, Section 45 of the Act provides for filing a suit for a declaratory decree by persons aggrieved by an entry in a record of rights. It is provided that any person considering himself aggrieved as to any right of which he is in the possession by an entry in a record of rights or in an annual record, he may institute a suit for a declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific C.W.P. No.20063 of 2006 [8] Relief Act, 1877 (now Specific Relief Act, 1963). Therefore, if clouds are cast on the rights of the petitioners they are liable to file a civil suit. This Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction is not to dislodge the findings reached at by the revenue Courts on the basis of evidence on record as evidence is not to be re-appreciated in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there has been a misreading of the evidence on record and the statements (Annexures-P.7 and P.8) of the marginal witnesses as also of the propounder (Annexure-P.9) is misconceived as those are not to be gone into in the present proceedings. Even the reference made to the application dated 25.7.2001 (Annexure-P.6) by Smt. Soma is not to be considered in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The said application, it is submitted, is in the nature of pleading but even if it is an admission it has to be proved in accordance with the mode of proving evidence. In Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil, AIR 1977 SC 1712 it was observed as under:- “An admission is relevant and it has to be proved before it becomes evidence. The provisions in the Evidence Act that `admission is not conclusive proof' are to be considered in regard to two features of evidence. First, what weight is to be attached to an admission? In order to attach weight it has to be found out whether the admission is clear, unambiguous and is a relevant piece of evidence. Second, even if the admission is proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act and if it is to be used against the party who has made it, it is sound that if a witness is under cross-examination on oath, he C.W.P. No.20063 of 2006 [9] should be given an opportunity, if the documents are to be used against him, to tender his explanation and to clear up the point of ambiguity or dispute. This is a general salutary and intelligible rule. Therefore, a mere proof of admission, after the person whose admission it is alleged to be has concluded his evidence, will be of no avail and cannot be utilized against him.” Therefore, in terms of the above even if the application (Annexure- P.6) is taken to have proved the case of the petitioners, the same is in the nature of admission and is to be used against the party who has made it, it is liable to be put to the said party when he is under cross-examination on oath so as to enable the party to explain his position. As such these are such matters which are best left to the domain of the civil Court and are not in the realm of the writ Court which is normally to proceed primarily on admitted and undisputed facts that are available. Therefore, the petitioners in case they are aggrieved against the decision regarding entry of mutation in the revenue records, they have their remedy before the civil Court and this Court is not to appreciate the evidence and material and reach at a conclusion different from that reached at by the revenue authorities as that would be substituting its decision for that of the revenue authorities which may be fallible. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. October 13, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* C.W.P. No.20063 of 2006 [10] NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No