Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.: - The present writ petition has been placed before us on a reference made by learned Single Judge of this Court on 14.03.2012 referring the following question for the opinion of this Bench:

“Whether the mutation of inheritance can be kept in abeyance specifically when the mutation does not confer any title and is entered only with a view to update the revenue record?”

2. The aforesaid question arises out of the fact that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration that he is owner of the property described in the suit as a successor-in-interest of Basant Kaur on the basis of Will dated 30.07.1963. The private respondents herein are relying upon another Will dated 02.11.1976 said to be executed by Basant Kaur. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Ludhiana adjourned the mutation proceedings sine die till the decision of the civil suit vide order dated 17.08.2005. The said order was set aside by the Collector on 07.09.2006 and the matter remitted to the Assistant Collector for fresh decision. The Assistant Collector passed an order on 24.12.2007 sanctioning mutation. The said order was again set aside by the Collector on 07.11.2008 and the matter remitted back to the Assistant Collector. When the matter was pending before the Assistant Collector, an application for stay of mutation proceedings was filed by the petitioner, which was declined on 16.03.2009. The revision against the said order was dismissed on 21.08.2009. Further revision was also dismissed on 25.05.2010. It is the said orders, which are subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2008(1) Law Herald (P&H) 334] : 2007 (4) P.L.R. 638, wherein this Court has not interfered with the order passed by the Commissioner that the mutation should be kept in abeyance till the matter is decided by the Civil Court.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents relies upon another Division Bench judgment of this Court in Harjit Kaur Vs. Kartar Kaur [2007(2) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 1196] : 2007 (3) PLR 572 to contend that the mutation does not confer any title and the same is entered only with a view to update the revenue records. The intricate questions regarding inheritance are not required to be gone into by the revenue officials in exercise of summary jurisdiction of the revenue authorities. The questions of title are to be decided by the Civil Court, but the mutation has to be sanctioned by the Revenue Authorities to update the revenue record.

5. Learned Single Judge noticed the apparent conflict between the two Division Bench judgments relied upon by the respective parties and referred the question, as mentioned above, to the Larger Bench.

6. Before this Bench, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court reported as Shamsher Singh Vs. Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala & others [2011(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3446] : 2011 (4) PLR 254, wherein it was ordered that the writ petitions arising out of summary proceedings of mutation should ordinarily not be entertained and parties should be left to get their respective title decided in a suit for declaration. It was ordered that after abolition of land revenue in the States of Punjab & Haryana, no land revenue is to be recovered; therefore, no mutation is required to be carried out if mutation is disputed/contested by the respective parties. In case mutation is contested, entry should be made to the effect that mutation is contested between the parties so described. It is, thus, contended that though the purpose of the mutation is to maintain record for the purposes of realization of the revenue, but after the abolition of land revenue, no useful purpose is served in the process of sanction of the mutation, therefore, the judgment of the Single Bench of this Court in Shamsher Singh’s case (supra) i