CHANCHAL SINGH Vs. PAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present is stated to be an appeal under section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 20th December, 1990, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division at Chandigarh, as per which he set aside the order of the Collector, Amritsar dated 31st July, 1989 and upheld the order of the A.C. IInd Grade, Amritsar dated 10.11.1988, in a case of the mutation number 2517 of village Bhangwan tehsil and district Amritsar regarding the inheritance of Jit Singh son of Hazara Singh.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that mutation No. 2517 of village Bhangwan tehsil and district Amritsar regarding the inheritance of Jit Singh, who died intestate, on 29.10.1988, was entered by the halqa patwari in the name of his widow-Pal Kaur alias Palo, at the instance of Smt. Pal Kaur who reported the matter to the halqa Patwari by submitting death certificate of Jit Singh. The "Shajra Nasab" on the mutation sheet was verified and attested by the village Nambardar-Puran Singh, the village Sarpanch-Kirpal Singh and the village Chowkidar-Nihal Singh. As per the "Shajra Nasab", Pal Kaur widow of Jit Singh-deceased has been shown as the only legal heir. The A.C. IInd Grade, Amritsar sanctioned this mutation, as entered by the halqa Patwari in favour of Smt. Pal Kaur as per his order dated 10.11.1988. Against this order, Chanchal Singh and Surjit Kaur, brother and sisters respectively of the deceased Jit Singh, filed an appeal before the Collector, Amritsar, in which they challenged the mutation No. 2177 of the said village, instead of mutation No. 2517 as sanctioned by the A.C. IInd Grade, Amritsar. The Collector, Amritsar accepted this appeal, by observing, that the mutation being a contested one, could be heard and decided by the A.C. Ist Grade, as per his order dated 31.7.1989. This order of the Collector, Amritsar was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division at Chandigarh, who vide her order dated 20th December, 1990, accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the Collector dated 31.7.1989 and upheld the order dated 10.11.1988 passed by the A.C. IInd Grade, Amritsar. In her order, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that there was no appeal against mutation No. 2517 and the appeal before the Collector, Amritsar was void and time-barred; that the appeal before the Collector was against mutation No. 2177, that the respondents have not been able to lead any positive proof to establish their contention that the appellant (Pal Kaur) is not the widow of Jit Singh. Against the Commissioner's order, Chanchal Singh s/o Hazara Singh, brother of the deceased Jit Singh, has filed the present appeal dated 18th March, 1991, praying that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 20.12.1990 be set aside, the order of the Collector, Amritsar dated 31.7.1989 be restored, and the case be remanded to A.C. Ist Grade to pass the appropriate order.

(3.) I quite agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), that the A.C. IInd Grade, Amritsar, has rightly sanctioned the mutation of Jit Singh's inheritance, in the name of the widow Pal Kaur and the order passed by the Collector, Amritsar is unwarranted, and has been rightly quashed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The mutation was entered by the halqa Patwari at the instance of the widow of the deceased. The entries in the mutation sheet including "Shajra Nasab" have been verified by the village Nambardar, Sarpanch of the village, as well as the chowkidar of the village. The "Shajra Nasab" has rightly been prepared by indicating Pal Kaur, widow of the deceased as the sole legal heir to inherit the property. Under the law, brothers and sisters of the deceased were not required to be indicated in the "Shajra Nasab". As such, the order of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, dated the 10th November, 1988 is perfectly in order, which does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality which may require interference at my level. The grounds taken by the appellant in his "appeal" i.e. the respondent No. 5-Jagir Singh s/o Chanchal Singh has a Will allegedly executed by Jit Singh, deceased dated 29th July, 1987 in his favour; that Smt. Pal Kaur is not the widow of Jit Singh rather she is the wife of one Jagir Singh, who used to pay the maintenance allowance to Smt. Pal Kaur as per the judgment of Shri S.S. Sandhu, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. Tarn Taran; and that Jit Singh had never married Smt. Pal; Kaaur; are just afterthoughts of the petitioner to create impediments for the smooth devolution of inheritance of deceased-Jit Singh on Smt. Pal Kaur, widow and only rightful claimant. Hypothetically speaking, even if the ground taken by the "appellant" has any semblance of truth, such intricate questions of law and fact are not supposed to be decided by the revenue officer, and such matters are better decided by the competent civil courts. So, I do not see any merit in the assertions made by the appellant in the present petition.