Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
Sadhu Singh – Appellant
Versus
Financial Commissioner, Punjab – Respondent
CWP No.9446 of 2018
Decided On : 19-04-2018
Mutation of inheritance is governed by the relevant statutes and administrative functions of revenue officers. The court cites the case of Jagjit Singh v. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala and others to establish that mutation proceedings cannot be kept in abeyance, even during the pendency of a dispute before the Civil Court. The court also refers to the case of Rajinder Singh v. State of Haryana and others to emphasize that natural succession cannot be kept in abeyance. The court highlights the duty of revenue officers to enter mutations in exercise of their administrative functions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the mutation of inheritance of a piece of land. The petitioners claim to be the natural heirs of the deceased owner, while the private respondents claim to have inherited the property through an oral sale deed. The mutation was initially sanctioned in favor of the petitioners, but the private respondents raised objections. The mutation file was revised and reviewed, and the Assistant Collector 1st Grade ultimately sanctioned the mutation in favor of the petitioners. The private respondents appealed to the Collector, who affirmed the Assistant Collector's order. The respondents then filed a revision before the Commissioner, which was allowed. The Financial Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners, leading to the present petition for quashing the impugned order.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner is non-speaking and lacks any application of mind. The order merely reproduces the order passed by the Commissioner without providing any specific findings or considering the grounds of appeal. The court emphasizes the importance of following the principles of natural justice and giving reasons for reaching a conclusion. Additionally, the court notes that the mutation of inheritance cannot be kept in abeyance and must be sanctioned in favor of one of the parties. The court cites relevant case law to support this principle. The court concludes that the Financial Commissioner failed to appreciate the evidence and the purpose of the appeal, and sets aside the impugned order with directions to reconsider the appeal and pass a fresh, well-reasoned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court establishes that the mutation of inheritance cannot be kept in abeyance and must be sanctioned in favor of one of the parties. The court emphasizes the importance of following the principles of natural justice and providing reasons for reaching a conclusion. The court also highlights the duty of revenue officers to enter mutations in exercise of their administrative functions, even during the pendency of a dispute before the Civil Court.
Result: The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Financial Commissioner to reconsider the appeal and pass a fresh, well-reasoned order. The Financial Commissioner is directed not to be influenced by the earlier order.
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
1. The prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned order dated 12.03.2018 (Annexure P-12), passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, whereby order dated 14.01.2015 (Annexure P-10), passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot has been affirmed and orders dated 08.08.2013 and 30.09.2014 (Annexures P-8 and P-9, respectively), passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Bathinda and the Collector Bathinda, respectively, have been set aside.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present petition, are that the land in dispute measuring 488 Kanals was the joint ownership of co-sharers namely Raj Kaur widow of Hira Singh and Narain Singh in 1/2 equal shares. Raj Kaur and Narain Singh were not related to each other. Petitioners are stated to be natural/legal heirs of deceased Narain Singh, whereas private respondents claimed themselves to have inherited the property in dispute from deceased Raj Kaur by way of oral sale deed. On the basis of affidavit dated 11.11.2011/12.11.2011 filed by Sadhu Singh (petitioner No.1), mutation of inheritance of deceased Narain Singh was entered in favour of the petitioners, who are the natural heirs. On the basis of natural succession, the mutation was sanctioned and verified after verification by Naib Tehsildar, Bhucho Kalan vide order dated 16.11.2011. Objections were raised by the private respondents against the sanction of the mutation. The District Collector, Bathinda vide order dated 12.09.2012 ordered for revision of mutation and for that, file was sent to the Tehsildar, Bathinda. In pursuance of said order, Tehsildar Bathinda forwarded the mutation file to the Naib Tehsildar for necessary compliance. Thereafter, mutation was revised/reviewed. Petitioner No.1 Sadhu Singh filed one application before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade for declaring the mutation to be contested and file was sent to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, before whom the objections raised by the private respondents were contested. The Collector, Bathinda vide order dated 30.04.2013 transferred the mutation file to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. During pendency of that proceedings, petitioners filed one application dated 10.06.2013 claiming that private respondents have no locus standi to contest the mutation as they do not claim inheritance of deceased Narain Singh. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade passed order dated 08.08.2013 after hearing the parties and by considering the evidence specially the judgment of Civil Court. Thereafter, mutation was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of entering mutation, the private respondents filed appeal before the Collector but he affirmed order dated 08.08.2013 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. The appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed. Thereafter, revision was filed before the Commissioner, which was allowed on 14.01.2015. Said order dated 14.01.2015 was challenged in appeal filed before the Financial Commissioner but it was dismissed vide order dated 12.03.2018.
4. Order dated 12.03.2018 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab is the subject mater of challenge in the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is totally non-speaking and same has been passed without taking into consideration the grounds of appeal and same is without any application of mind. Learned counsel also submits that the private respondents are neither the legal heirs of deceased Narain Singh nor they purchased the land from him. They did inherit any right from deceased Narain Singh and as such they have no locus standi to contest the mutation. Learned counsel also submits that none of the contentions raised by the petitioners were taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel also submits that learned Financial Commissioner has failed to consider that
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
