The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of Civil Court decrees on revenue authorities and their duty to incorporate decrees in the revenue record.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this petition is for quashing of impugned order dated 18.05.2022 passed by respondent No.3-Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Ambala Cantt, vide which representation of the petitioners dated 10.10.2021 was rejected in pursuance to the directions given by this Court in CWP-4904-2022 vide order dated 12.05.2022.

2. On 30.06.2022, while issuing notice of motion, following order was passed: -

'...Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that disputed land, at one point of time, was owned by one Ami Singh, who died issueless and his wife Kalehri also died issueless on 19.09.1955. It is further submitted that Kalehri executed a Will in favour of her alleged adopted son Bhondu.

The petitioners are sons/grandsons of Thakar Singh son of Bhondu and are owners of the land in dispute on the basis of Will dated 09.06.1917, which has been upheld by the Civil Court upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also submitted that initially, a suit was filed by the proprietary body of the village claiming a right over the property, as Kalehri died issueless and similarly, three suits were filed for redemption of the mortgage deed, which was allegedly created by Smt. Kalehri.

Learned senior counsel has referred to judgment of the Civil Court dated 14.08.1978, wherein issue No.7 with regard to Will was upheld in favour of Bhondu. He further referred to judgment of the lower appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala) dated 10.01.1980, wherein the findings recorded by the Civil Court with regard to aforesaid Will Ex.D3, were upheld by making the following observations: -

 '...As such the principle of homogeneity was not applicable in the villages. It follows from it that the widow of Amit Singh namely Kalhari inherited full proprietary rights on the death of her husband as well as on the death of Hanso. There was absolutely no bar or responsibilities upon her to have any Will in favour of anybody she liked. In these circumstances, the Will made by Shrimati Kalhari Ex.D3, conferred all rights upon Bhondu which could acquire under Will. On his death, the rights were acquired by Thakur Singh and the present defendant-respondents have stepped into the shows of Thakur Singh. For those reasons, I uphold the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court, though for different reasons.'

It is further submitted that later on, four Regular Second Appeals were filed, which were decided together by this Court vide order dated 13.09.2006 and while upholding the Will in favour of Bhondu, the appeals were dismissed. The operative part of the judgment passed in RSAs reads as under: -

'...In the absence of any other heir, the reversionary right in the estate of Ami Singh could not be claimed by anyone. Therefore, Kalahari, wife of Amit Singh, would succeed as owner of the estate of her husband. The plaintiffs cannot claim any interest in the estate of deceased Amit Singh as he cannot be said to have died issueless and without any heir as Bhondu is the legal heir under a valid Will. Thus, as an owner, Kalahari was competent to execute the Will in favour of Bhondu. Thus, in respect of first substantial question of law, it is held that Kalahari would succeed as complete owner of the estate of her husband.

In respect of second substantial question of law, it may be seen that in Riwaj-i-am Exhibit P-5, the question which is sought to be answered is that if a person who dies without any issue and any Will (emphasis supplied), then who will succeed to his estate i.e. government or Patti or Taraf or Shamlat deh etc., or proprietors. The answer recorded is that the first right is of the proprietors of the Tholla, Patti and Shamlat deh in which the deceased has died. The proprietors of the same Gotar and the community of which the deceased reside in Tholla, Patti or Shamlat deh will succeed in the first instance. If there is anybody from the Gotar, then it goes to the community. The State has no right in the