RAJESH KUMAR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dtd. 19/12/2007 (Annexure P4) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab (Appeals- II), Chandigarh (respondent No.1), order dtd. 21/8/2007 (Annexure P3) passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala (respondent No.2), order dtd. 15/12/1997 (Annexure P2) passed by the Collector, Sangrur (respondent No.3) and order dtd. 12/6/1996 (Annexure P1) passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Malerkotla (respondent No.4) whereby mutation No.20665 regarding inheritance of Parkash Chand (deceased) has been sanctioned in equal shares to the extent of 1/3rd share each between Parmeshwari Devi mother of the deceased, Phullan Wati (respondent No.5) wife of the deceased and Sunita Garg @ Sumita Garg (respondent No.6) adopted daughter of the deceased.

(2.) The facts of the case are that Parkash Chand died on 16/1/1995. The Halqa Patwari while entering the mutation in addition to Parmeshwari Devi mother of the deceased and Phullan Wati (respondent No.5) wife of the deceased also entered the name of Sunita Garg @ Sumita Garg adopted daughter of the deceased. The grievance of the petitioner is that in a suit filed by Sunita Garg @ Sumita Garg (respondent No.6), the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla vide judgment dtd. 24/4/2004 (Annexure P6) has held that the plaintiff -Sunita Garg @ Sumita Garg was never held to be an adopted daughter of Parkash Chand. A reference was made to an earlier judgment in which the then Additional District Judge, Sangrur had also held that Sunita Garg @ Sumita Garg was not the adopted daughter of Parkash Chand (deceased).

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that revenue authorities are bound by the orders and judgments of the Civil Court and mutation is liable to be sanctioned on the basis of the Civil Court judgment dtd. 24/4/2004 (Annexure P6).