Brothers and sisters of the deceased are not required to be indicated in the "Shajra Nasab" for the purpose of mutation of inheritance.

S.R. Bunger, FC. - The present is stated to be an appeal under section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against the order dated 20th December, 1990, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division at Chandigarh, as per which he set aside the order of the Collector, Amritsar dated 31st July, 1989 and upheld the order of the A.C. IInd Grade, Amritsar dated 10.11.1988, in a case of the mutation number 2517 of village Bhangwan tehsil and district Amritsar regarding the inheritance of Jit Singh son of Hazara Singh.

2. The brief facts of this case are that mutation No. 2517 of village Bhangwan tehsil and district Amritsar regarding the inheritance of Jit Singh, who died intestate, on 29.10.1988, was entered by the halqa patwari in the name of his widow-Pal Kaur alias Palo, at the instance of Smt. Pal Kaur who reported the matter to the halqa Patwari by submitting death certificate of Jit Singh. The "Shajra Nasab" on the mutation sheet was verified and attested by the village Nambardar-Puran Singh, the village Sarpanch-Kirpal Singh and the village Chowkidar-Nihal Singh. As per the "Shajra Nasab", Pal Kaur widow of Jit Singh-deceased has been shown as the only legal heir. The A.C. IInd Grade, Amritsar sanctioned this mutation, as entered by the halqa Patwari in favour of Smt. Pal Kaur as per his order dated 10.11.1988. Against this order, Chanchal Singh and Surjit Kaur, brother and sisters respectively of the deceased Jit Singh, filed an appeal before the Collector, Amritsar, in which they challenged the mutation No. 2177 of the said village, instead of mutation No. 2517 as sanctioned by the A.C. IInd Grade, Amritsar. The Collector, Amritsar accepted this appeal, by observing, that the mutation being a contested one, could be heard and decided by the A.C. Ist Grade, as per his order dated 31.7.1989. This order of the Collector, Amritsar was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division at Chandigarh, who vide her order dated 20th December, 1990, accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the Collector dated 31.7.1989 and upheld the order dated 10.11.1988 passed by the A.C. IInd Grade, Amritsar. In her order, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that there was no appeal against mutation No. 2517 and the appeal before the Collector, Amritsar was void and time-barred; that the appeal before the Collector was against mutation No. 2177, that the respondents have not been able to lead any positive proof to establish their contention that the appellant (Pal Kaur) is not the widow of Jit Singh. Against the Commissioners order, Chanchal Singh s/o Hazara Singh, brother of the deceased Jit Singh, has filed the present appeal dated 18th March, 1991, praying that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 20.12.1990 be set aside, the order of the Collector, Amritsar dated 31.7.1989 be restored, and the case be remanded to A.C. Ist Grade to pass the appropriate order.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the proxy for the counsel for the respondents have been heard. After careful consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, as well as perusal of the record, I am of the view that the present appeal/revision petition deserves to be rejected. In the present case, against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division dated 20th December, 1990, no further appeal is competent. As such, the present appeal filed by appellant-Chanchal Singh, does not lie. The present "appeal" deserves to be rejected, on this sole ground. However, in interest of justice, I treat the present appeal as a revision petition and decide to consider this case on merit. It may be mentioned that in this case, the relevant mutation number is 2517 and not 2177; and it appears to be wrongly mentioned in the appeal before the Collector, Amritsar, inadvertently. There is no scope for any controversy in this regard. The observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard, in her order is not justified and dese