AMRINDER SINGH Vs. JANGIR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two petitions under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 seek to revise the order dated 27.11.2001 of the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and the orders dated 29.6.2000 and 31.10.2000 of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Malout, and to restore the order dated 31.5.2001 of the SDM-cum-Collector, Malout, in regard to Mutation Nos. 1585 and 1607 of village Katorewala, H.B. No. 169, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar of inheritance of Katha Singh deceased.

(2.) THE pedigree-table on reverse of Mutation No. 1585 entered on 24.2.2000 by the Patwari Halqa showed heirs of Katha Singh deceased to be Jangir Kaur widow, Amarjit Kaur, Gurmit Kaur, Sukhdeep Kaur, daughters and Amrinder Singh, adopted son. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade vide order dated 29.6.2000 dismissed the mutation in default of appearance of any of the heirs. Thereafter a fresh Mutation No. 1607 was entered, wherein the name of Amrinder Singh was deleted from the pedigree-table. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade vide order dated 31.10.2000 sanctioned the mutation. In appeal, the Collector set aside both orders. He rejected Mutation No. 1607 on the ground that a mutation of inheritance could not be re-entered and sanctioned afresh and sanctioned Mutation No. 1585 on the basis of natural inheritance. The Commissioner held that the question whether adoption is valid or not is an intricate question of law and fact, and is best left to the Civil Court to decide. The respondent (present petitioner) should await the decision of the Civil Court.

(3.) AS regards Mutation No. 1585, the evidence before the Revenue Officer was the duly attested pedigree-table showing the petitioner to be the adopted son of the deceased, the ration card, the Voter's List, entries in the register relating to performance of last rites of the deceased, photocopy of the Public Notice issued by the respondents etc. On the basis of this evidence, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the other party, the Collector was entirely justified in sanctioning the mutation in favour of all the heirs including the petitioner. The Commissioner has not discussed this evidence and instead has gone into the validity of the adoption which is an intricate question of law and fact. Accordingly the petition is accepted and the order of the Collector is upheld. A copy of this order to be placed on each file. To be communicated. Petition accepted.