C.W.P. No.11074 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.11074 of 1992 Date of Decision : 27.04.2011 Roop Singh and others …Petitioners Versus Punjab State and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. J.R. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Dr. U.S. Dhaliwal, Addl. A. G., Punjab. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) By this petition the petitioners have challenged the orders Annexures P-5 and P-6 allowing the application filed by the respondent No.4 under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The admitted facts are that the land in dispute was owned by one Harnam Singh. After his death his widow Parmeshwari Devi succeeded. Parmeshwari Devi had just one daughter. She also died in the year 1948. Her daughter and her grand sons were in C.W.P. No.11074 of 1992 -2- possession of the land. After 14 years, by mutation No.870 dated 30.06.1962 the land was mutated in the name of State of Punjab on the ground that Parmeshwari Devi had died without living any male heir and, since the Hindu Succession Act had not been passed at that time the property could belong to the State. The precise question before this Court is whether prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 women could not inherit the property of their parents in any circumstances. In this regard, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has argued that even under Hindu customary law, in the event of their not being male heir collaterals would state claim to the property but in any state the property could not be transferred to the State. Learned Additional Advocate General has not been able to counter this argument. In the circumstances, mutation No.870 dated 30.06.1962 cannot be held to confer any title to the State. Even otherwise a mutation by itself can never confirm any title under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. Resultantly, the proceedings under the Act are clearly vitiated. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders (Annexures P-5 and P-6) and the proceedings under the above mentioned Act are set aside. C.W.P. No.11074 of 1992 -3- ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 27, 2011 JUDGE ashish