BALBIR SINGH Vs. MAJOR UMRAO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision Petition filed u/s 16 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 11.8.2004 passed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar quashing the order dated 28.8.2003 of the Collector, Nawanshahr and upholding the order dated 7.5.2003 of Assistant Commissioner Ist Grade, Nawanshahr.

(2.) BOTH the parties were heard through their counsels. The brief facts of the case are that two mutations bearing No. 7232 of Village Kamam-I and No. 533 of village Kamam-II, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr were entered by Patwari concerned on the basis of natural succession in favour of Lt. Col. Parshotam Singh, Major Umrao Singh and Balbir Singh (sons) and Smt. Harbahajan Kaur (daughter) in equal share. This mutation related to the inheritance of deceased Bikram Singh s/o Dalip Singh. Revision Petitioners have claimed succession in the estate of the deceased on the basis of registered Will dated 10.11.1998. Being a contested mutation, it was sent to the A.C. Ist Grade, Nawanshahr for decision who sanctioned the mutation in favour of Balbir Singh and others on the basis of registered Will vide order dated 15.4.2002. On appeal, the case was remanded by Collector, Nawanshahr for holding inquiry as to whether property in dispute was ancestral or self-acquired, vide order dated 8.11.2002. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Collector, Shri Balbir Singh filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who dismissed the same vide his order dated 19.2.2003.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for revision petitioner argued that petitioner No. 1, Balbir Singh is son of one Bikram Singh who had three other children namely, Umrao Singh, Purshotam Singh and Harbhajan Kaur. Parshotam Singh is since deceased and his widow Kamaljit Kaur and daughters Rachandeep Kaur and Ashandeep Kaur are respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Major Umrao Singh is respondent No. 1. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur d/o Bikram Singh is respondent No. 2. Dalip Singh, father of Bikram Singh executed a Will in favour of Bikram Singh and his brothers. Learned cousnel for revision Petitioner argued that since Bikram Singh has received the property by way of Will and same is considered as non-ancestral personal property and, therefore, father of petitioner Bikram Singh was well within his rights to execute a Will in favour of the petitioner excluding the other natural successors. He also argued that before executing the Will, Bikram Singh had already got published a notice disowning Purshotam Singh. He also stated that legal notice was given to Umrao Singh and, therefore, the suspicion about the registered Will is not valid. The learned counsel for revision petitioner contended that the Commissioner has wrongly put a question mark on the validity of Will and, further, no adverse inference should be drawn on mere registration of FIR. Further, the fact that Bikram Singh also bequeathed property to the sons of respondent No. 1, Umrao Singh namely Suraj Bahadur Singh and Wayee Singh, goes in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that that the mutation has been rightly sanctioned on the basis of registered Will and should stay as such till the civil Court orders it otherwise.