Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. (Oral):- Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, thereby remanding a case of mutation to Assistant Collector 1st Grade, to take fresh decision after due notice to both the parties, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing of the impugned order.

2. Facts first. The dispute in the present case relates to mutation number 3692 of village Passian, Tehsil and District Patiala, which came to be recorded as a mutation of inheritance on the death of Smt. Shardi Devi, widow of Hari Ram. It is the own pleaded case of the petitioner that Hari Ram left behind his widow Smt. Shardi Devi, three sons namely Karamjit Singh, Chandan Ram and Lajja Ram as well as four daughters, namely Nachhattar Kaur, Smt. Basso, Smt. Satya and Smt. Chhoti. Lajja Ram died unmarried and issue less on 26.11.2001 and after his death mutation number 2929 was sanctioned, as per succession. On the death of Smt.Shardi Devi, since the mutation became contested, it was referred to Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Patiala, who sanctioned the same in favour of respondent No.5, on the basis of unregistered Will dated 25.9.2005, vide his order dated 26.12.2008 (Annexure P-1). The appeal filed by the petitioner against the above-said order dated 26.11.2008 was dismissed by the Collector Patiala vide his order dated 6.8.2009 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner approached the Commissioner, Patiala Division and his revision was allowed, vide order dated 14.9.2010 (Annexure P-6). The Commissioner set aside the above-said orders dated 26.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and also the order dated 6.8.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Collector. The mutation was ordered to be sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of un-registered Will dated 17.3.2006. Dissatisfied, respondent No.5 approached the Financial Commissioner challenging the above-said order dated 14.9.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division. The revision petition filed by respondent No.5 was allowed by the Financial Commissioner remanding the case back to Assistant Collector 1st Grade with a direction to issue notice to all the legal heirs of deceased Smt. Shardi Devi, vide order dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure P-10). Petitioner impugnes this order by way of present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner was illegal and contrary to the facts of the case. He further submits that the order passed by the Commissioner was factually correct and legally justified which ought to have been upheld by the Financial Commissioner. He next contended that since the daughters of Smt. Shardi Devi were not coming forward, there was no necessity of issuing notice to them. He also submits that before passing the order dated 26.12.2008 (Annexure P-1), Assistant Collector 1st Grade, has issued summons to all the legal heirs including the daughters, but they did not come forward. He concluded by submitting that the impugned order dated 21.11.2012 (Annexure P-10) may be set aside by allowing the present writ petition.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present one is a case which is without any substance and it is liable to be dismissed for the following more than one reasons.

5. It has come on record that the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 are claiming the entire land left behind by Smt. Shardi Devi, on the basis of Will. Respondent No.5 claims that Smt. Shardi Devi executed the Will dated 25.9.2005, on the basis of which, he was entitled for the land. On the other hand, petitioner claims that Smt. Shardi Devi executed the Will