Mutation proceedings cannot be stayed indefinitely and should not be held in abeyance till the decision of the Civil Court. A mutation neither creates nor extinguishes right but is only a means of recording a lawfully acquired right in the revenue record.

Dr. A.R. Basu, F.C.—This revision petition preferred under Section 17 of H.P. Land Revenue Act by the petitioner Shri Jagat Ram, is directed against the order dated 29.1.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Una exercising the powers of Commissioner under the H.P. Land Revenue Act whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order dated 13.9.2001 of the Assistant Collector Ilnd Grade was accepted and case was remanded to the Assistant Collector with the direction to dispose of the mutation in the light of the observations of the learned Commissioner in his order under challenge.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that on the basis of a registered Will made by one Shri Prema resident of Bhera, Tehsil Amb, the Patwari entered a mutation No. 241 of Village Bhera in respect of the estate of the deceased Prema in favour of the present respondents named S/Sh. Kartar Chand, Ashok Kumar and Shri Dinesh Kumar. The Assistant Collector II Grade, vide an interim order dated 22.7.1999, ordered the mutation to be kept in abeyance till the decision of a civil suit pending between the parties.

3. Against this order of the Assistant Collector II Grade, the present respondents filed revision petition before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Amb on the grounds that the Assistant Collector II Grade could not keep the mutation in abeyance without any cogent reasons as the said mutation was of the succession of the deceased which could not be kept pending especially when there was no time limit fixed for the decision of the civil suit.

4. The Collector after hearing the learned counsel for the present respondents and going through the record of the case, remanded the case to the Assistant Collector II Grade Amb vide order dated 13.9.2001 for disposal in accordance with provisions of law and after ascertaining the status of civil litigation within a period of three months and further ordered to afford due and reasonable opportunity to all the concerned parties.

5. Aggrieved by this order of the Collector Amb dated 13.9.1991, Sh. Jagat Ram, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Com-missioner (Exercising the powers of Commissioner) Una on the grounds that he had not been heard at the time of arguments by the court below and that as per the order of the Collector if the mutation was sanctioned. It would lead to multiplicity of litigation due to pending civil litigation benween the parties. The learned Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) Una after hearing both the parties and after going through the record of the case held that the mutation proceedings being of a summary in nature could not be kept pending by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade indefinitely or the orders cannot be held in abeyance till the decision of the Civil Court. He set aside the order of the Collector Amb dated 13.9.2001 vide order dated 29.1.2003 and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector II Grade with the direction to dispose of the mutation in the light of observations made by him in the order under challenge.

6. Dis-satisfied with this order of the Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) Una dated 29.1.2003, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner before this Court.

7. The record of the courts below was called for and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties were heard.

8. Shri Ajay Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the mutation which was kept in abeyance vide the impugned order dated 22.7.1999 has finally been rejected by the Assistant Collector II Grade on the 8.12.2000. According to him, it was this order dated 8.12.2000 which the present respondents ought to have challenged. The fact of the rejection was brought to the notice of the learned Collector as well as the learned Commissioner but both the Courts below have gravely erred in ignoring the said fact. Furthermore, he contended that the orders of the Collector dated 13.9.2001 and those of the Commissioner d