DEV RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 1.10.2008 (Annexure-P.7) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, the order dated 19.4.2006 (Annexure-P.5) passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, the order dated 22.7.2004 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the Collector, Ludhiana and the order dated 23.5.2003 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the Assistant Collector Grade I, Payal, District Ludhiana and for issuance of directions to sanction mutation with regard to the estate of deceased Harnek Singh in favour of the petitioners on the basis of registered Will dated 1.10.2001 executed in favour of the petitioners.

(2.) THE petitioners are real brothers and are the sons of Mohinder Singh. Harnek Singh (deceased) whose estate is in dispute was the son of their real paternal uncle (Chacha) Inder Singh. He was unmarried and was living with the petitioners. He was being looked after by the petitioners for the last many years and due to this he had executed a registered Will dated 1.10.2001 in their favour with regard to his properties. The said Will was scribed by Harbans Singh Vasika Navis and was witnessed by Raghbir Singh by putting his thumb impression on the Will. After about 8 months of the execution of the Will Harnek Singh died and the petitioners on the basis of the registered Will made an application for sanction of mutation in their favour with regard to the property of Harnek Singh. The mutation was objected by Sajjan Singh (respondent No. 6) who is the real brother of Harnek Singh (deceased). He seeks sanction of the mutation on the basis of inheritance. The Will set up by the petitioners was contested by Sajjan Singh (respondent No. 6). The petitioners, therefore, led evidence to prove the registered Will. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners the evidence was discarded by the Assistant Collector Grade I, Payal, Ludhiana in a totally arbitrary manner and mutation was sanctioned in the name of Sajjan Singh (respondent No. 6) on the basis of natural succession vide order dated 23.5.2003 (Annexure-P.1). The said order was affirmed in appeal by the Collector and also by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. The petitioners aggrieved against the same preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which has also been dismissed. They have, therefore, approached this Court.

(3.) AFTER giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter and perusing the record, it may be noticed that the case relates to sanction of mutation on the basis of natural succession or registered Will which requires the appreciation and consideration of evidence. This Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not to go into the veracity of the evidence and reach a conclusion as to whether the Will set up by the petitioners is duly proved or whether the mutation was liable to be sanctioned on the basis of natural succession. Sanction of mutation as is well known does not determine the rights or title to the property. These are entered only for fiscal purpose of updating the record for the purpose of ascertaining the land revenue payable. Besides, mutation proceedings are summary in nature and technicalities of law which extinguish or confer some right on a party is not to be gone into. The question as regards the validity of the Will are to be determined and gone into in a duly instituted civil suit. Therefore, if mutation has sanctioned in favour of Sajjan Singh (respondent No. 6) the same does not by itself determine any question of right and title. The mutation proceedings having no judicial character and the only object being to update the revenue record the mere fact that mutation has been sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 6, does not vest title in him. The rights, question of title and validity of Will are to be determined by the regular civil Courts after evidence has been led in support or otherwise of the Will that is set-up by the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are relegated to the remedy of civil suit and the writ petition is clearly not maintainable.