Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmit Kaur And Others vs The Financial Commissioner on 22 May, 2013
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Rekha Mittal
LPA No.1655 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No.1655 of 2012
Pronounced on: 22nd May, 2013
Gurmit Kaur and others ..... Appellants
VERSUS
The Financial Commissioner
(Appeals), Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL
Present: Mr.R.D.Bawa, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab,
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.Harsh Bunger, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
*******
RAJIVE BHALLA, J.
The appeal is directed against order dated 17.09.2012, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.
After the demise of Amrik Singh, on 30.09.2007, the appellants approached revenue authorities for sanction of a mutation on the basis of a registered will, dated 07.04.1999, executed by Amrik Singh. Mutation No.828 was recorded in favour of the appellants on 07.12.2007 but as it was contested by the private respondents, the matter was referred to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Amritsar, who called upon parties to adduce evidence and after consideration of the evidence, rejected the registered will by holding that as it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and does not assign any reason for LPA No.1655 of 2012 -2- disinheriting the first wife, the will cannot be accepted. Vide order dated 17.09.2004, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, proceeded to sanction mutation on the basis of natural succession.
The Collector set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, in an appeal filed by the appellants ,and sanctioned a mutation on the basis of the registered will by holding that as the will stands proved by the depositions of marginal witnesses, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, was required to accept the will for the purpose of recording a mutation.
The private respondents filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar, vide order dated 21.01.2010. The order passed by the Collector was set aside and the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, was restored.
The appellants filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed on 04.05.2010. The appellants thereafter filed a writ petition which was dismissed by holding that the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar has recorded valid reasons, in his order, while observing that the will is a suspicious document and as the validity of the will has to be left to a civil court, mutation should be kept in abeyance till validity of the will is adjudicated by a civil court.
Counsel for the appellants submits that a revenue officer, exercising power to sanction a mutation, has no jurisdiction to reject a registered document, even if it is a will. A revenue officer, unlike a LPA No.1655 of 2012 -3- civil court, cannot decide complicated questions of fact, particularly, where rights of parties are dependent upon a registered instrument. It is further submitted that as held by a Division Bench of this Court in "Jagjit Singh Versus Divisional Commissioner, Patiala and others, 2012(4) PLR 289, mutation proceedings cannot be kept in abeyance. The sole purpose of recording a mutation is to update fiscal entries. A revenue officer, therefore, cannot refuse to give effect to a registered will. The appeal may be allowed, order passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside and revenue authorities may be directed to sanction a mutation on the basis of registered will dated 07.04.1999, legally and validly executed by Amrik Singh (deceased).
Counsel for the private respondents submits that mere registration of a will does not raise an inference as to its legality or validity. A revenue officer, while sanctioning a mutation, does not perform a ministerial act but discharges a quasi-judicial duty that necessarily grants him a discretion to either accept or decline a mutation, sought to be entered on the basis of a registered will. It is further submitted that in case, a mutation is sanctioned on the basis of a registered will, the successful party may alienate the land, thereby causing serious prejudice to the rights of the true owners. It is further submitted that a will, unlike a registered sale deed, operates after the demise of the testator and its execution cannot be verified like in the case of a registered sale deed.
After having heard counsel for the parties, we have no LPA No.1655 of 2012 -4- hesitation in holding that order, directing that mutation shall be kept in abeyance, cannot be sustained. A Division Bench of this Court, has held in Jagjit Singh's case (supra), that a mutation cannot be kept in abeyance to await the outcome of adjudication by a civil court. We find no reason to take a different view.
A mutation neither confers nor divests a party to its title or rights. A revenue officer, exercising power under Sections 31, 34, 35 and 37 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, read alongwith relevant provisions of the Punjab Land Record Manual, exercises a limited summary power, particularly, when he is called upon to enter a mutation on the basis of a registered document, to examine the identity and names of parties, the ownership and the title of the land/property, the consideration paid and received, the rights transferred by the registered instrument etc. and thereafter allow a mutation except where there is a prima facie and tenable allegation of cheating or fraud.
A will, whether registered or otherwise, however, stands on a different footing. A will is a testamentary document that comes into play after the demise of the testator, who can no longer vouch for its authenticity or legality. A revenue officer, faced with a disputed will whether registered or not, is conferred with a greater degree of discretion than in the cases of other registered documents and may proceed to "summarily" ascertain, the validity of a will and prima-facie determine, whether he should or should not sanction a mutation. The inquiry, so envisaged, is "summary" in nature. A revenue officer, does LPA No.1655 of 2012 -5- not exercise powers of a "revenue court" or a "civil court" and merely determines a disputed question, in the exercise of his summary power, to update a fiscal entry and nothing more.
Revenue officers, however, tend to record detailed and voluminous evidence, in the nature of jurisdiction exercised by civil courts, an apparent vestige from the times when "revenue officers" and "revenue court" exercised powers of civil courts. The State of Punjab was called upon to file an affidavit explaining the jurisdiction of a revenue officer. An affidavit has been filed by Mr.S.S.Khara, Special Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Revenue, Rehabilitation and Disaster Management, Chandigarh. The affidavit reveals that the State of Punjab is conscious of this anomaly but states that it would not be advisable to bind a revenue officer to sanction a mutation merely because a registered document is presented before him. We tend to agree with the stand taken by the State of Punjab but would like to impress upon the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, the significant distinction between powers of "civil courts" and "revenue officers". A revenue officer is required to confine his consideration to a summary adjudication in accordance with the limited powers conferred by the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. A revenue officer has the jurisdiction to reject a mutation and to hold that a will is a suspicious document but, while doing so, must be conscious of the limits of his jurisdiction and confine his consideration to a summary adjudication of a will without going into intricate details of evidence. LPA No.1655 of 2012 -6- A "revenue officer" shall not usurp the power of a civil court and decide disputed mutations like a civil suit.
As regards the merits of the case, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and the Commissioner have held, that there are certain suspicious circumstances that surround the execution of the will. We find no reason to interfere with these findings, particularly, as we are not able to discern an illegal or arbitrary exercise of discretion in the decision making process or in the conclusions. The final outcome of the dispute regarding title must await adjudication by a civil court.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed by modifying the impugned order in the following terms:-
1) The mutation shall be sanctioned, as held by order dated 21.01.2010, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) Jalandhar.
2) If a civil suit is pending, the revenue officer shall record, in the remarks column of the jamabandi, the particulars of the civil suit, so as to forewarn any prospective purchaser of the land, in dispute.
3) The parties shall be restrained from alienating the land, in dispute, during pendency of the civil suit.
[ RAJIVE BHALLA ] JUDGE 22nd May, 2013 [ REKHA MITTAL ] shamsher JUDGE