IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-9337-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision :09.09.2025 PARAMJIT KAUR …Petitioner Versus LD. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate and Mr. Navdeep Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab.

HARSH BUNGER, J. [ORAL]

Prayer in the present writ petition, filed under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 28.09.2021 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and also the order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner Appeals, Punjab.

2. Succinctly, the present petition arises out of the mutation proceedings in respect of inheritance of Ramanpreet Singh son of Sh. Balwinder Singh, who expired on 23.08.2016.

2.1 Present petitioner-Paramjit Kaur is the mother of Ramanpreet Singh and she claims inheritance on the basis of Will dated 24.04.2016, alleged to be executed by deceased-Ramanpreet Singh.

2.2 It appears that the petitioner approached the revenue authorities for mutating the estate of deceased Ramanpreet Singh in her favour on the basis of afore-said Will dated 24.04.2016; however, the same was objected to by respondent No.5-Sukhdeep Kaur (wife of deceased Ramanpreet Singh). Since the mutation was contested and the same was put up for decision before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rajpura, who vide his order dated 30.01.2018 (Annexure P-1) directed that the mutation regarding inheritance of deceased Ramanpreet Singh, be sanctioned in favour of his natural heirs, which included the petitioner-Paramjit Kaur as well as respondent No.5-Sukhdeep Kaur.

2.3 The afore-said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the learned Collector, Patiala, who vide his order dated 23.05.2018 (Annexure P-2) allowed the appeal, by observing that the witnesses have proved the Will.

2.4 The Collector’s order was challenged by respondent No.5 by filing an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala who vide order dated 28.09.2021 (Annexure P-3) allowed the appeal by observing as under :-

“6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the two parties and have also closely perused the record as is available on the file. In this case the mutation in question is regarding inheritance of Ramanpreet Singh son of Balwinder Singh who died on 23-08-2016 leaving behind a mother and widow as class-1 legal heirs. The appellant being wife is claiming the mutation on the basis of natural succession whereas the respondent is claiming the mutation on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 24-04- 2016. The A.C. Ist grade had sanctioned the mutation on the basis of natural succession but in the appeal the Collector has sanctioned the mutation on the basis of said Will. The main contention of the appellant is that the Will is a forged and fabricated document and could not be relied upon for sanctioning of mutation and as such the mutation should have been sanctioned on the basis of natural succession.

After perusing all the facts of the case, it is evident that the appellant is legally wedded wife of the deceased. The respondent has claimed that the appellant is not wife of the deceased but she has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove this fact. The respondent has also failed to prove that the Will in question is a genuine document. There were cordial relations between the deceased and his wife. There is no document placed on record to prove that the deceased had strained relations with his wife. As such there was no reason for the deceased to disinherit his wife from his succession and to execute a Will in favour of his mother. It is a well settled law that if a revenue officer finds even a slightest doubt in the execution of any d