ISHRI DEVI Vs. DIRECTOR (CONSOLIDATIONS) PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge is to order passed by respondent No.1 Director Consolidation Punjab dated 6.12.1985 vide which the petition filed by other respondents under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding (consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 was allowed and mutation No. 529 With regard to inheritance of the estate of Mula Mal was held to be illegal, void and nonest. It will be enough to mention here that on death of one Mula Mal, mutation No. 529 with regard to inheritance was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner by Assistant Collector, IInd Grade on 27.5.1957. Immediately thereafter the effect to the aforesaid mutation was given by incorporating the same in all the revenue records Raghunath, father of respondent Nos. 2 ot 5 never contested the aforesaid mutation in the hierarchy of revenue course It is only after the death of aforesaid Raghunath that an unregistered will in favour of said Reghunath was set up by respondent No. 2 to 5. The said will is stated to have come in existance on 15.2.1955. Staking claim to the estate of Mula Mal aforesaid, respondent No.s 2 to 5 moved an application under Sections 42 of the Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab who vide impugned order dated 6.12.1985 held the mutation No. 529 sanctioned on 23.5.1957 in favour of the petitioner to be illegal, void and nonest. Respondent 2 to 5 have filed written statement but subsequent developments would go to show contentions incorporated in the written statement have lost all its bite.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has brought to my notice that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 on the basis of will aforesaid filed a civil suit for possession of he land in dispute in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Ferozepur and the same was dismissed by a judgement and decree passed in that behalf on 29.10.1988. The first appeal carried against the a foresaid judgment and decree by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 was also dismissed by Additional District Judge on 22.11.1989 and the on 5.6.1990. All these facts have been contained in a separate application filed C.M. No. 7915 of 1990. No reply has been filed to this application nor the facts aforesaid have even been disputed at the time of arguments. Mr. Chopra learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 tried their luch even before the Supreme Court but the special leave petition filed buy them was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 5.11.1990. A photostat copy of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been placed on the record of this Court.

(3.) A persual of the aforesaid impressive array of facts would straight way warrant relief to the petitioner by setting aside order Annexure p.2. The jurisdiction of the Consolidation authorities to deal with the matter apart, it is abundantly clear that the will on the basis of which order Annexure P2 was passed has been rejected by the Civil Court's and findings of the Civil Court admittedly would have precedence over the orders passed by revenue officer or authorities under the Consolidation Act. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 during the course of hearing were rightly unable to support the order Annexure P.2.