Quashed

Rajesh Kumar v. Financial Commissioner and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Aug 2009CWP/5734/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge held that revenue authorities must follow the Civil Court decree denying adoption status and quashed orders sanctioning mutation in favor of the adopted daughter, directing mutual registration in equal shares between the mother and wife while reserving rights if the pending appeal succeeds.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's appeal allowed; impugned orders quashed; mutation to be entered in equal shares between Parmeshwari Devi and Phullan Wati according to the Civil Court judgment dated 24.4.2004.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Financial Commissioner and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CWP No. 5734 of 2008

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 5734 of 2008

¶5

Date of decision : August 4, 2009

Rajesh Kumar

….. Petitioner

Versus

Financial Commissioner and Others

¶10

….. Respondents

¶11

Present: Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. H.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 4.

¶13

Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 6.

¶14

¶15

S.S. SARON, J.

¶16

The present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 19.12.2007 (Annexure P4) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab (AppealsII), Chandigarh (respondent No.1), order dated 21.8.2007 (Annexure P3) passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala (respondent No.2), order dated 15.12.1997 (Annexure P2) passed by the Collector, Sangrur (respondent No.3) and order dated 12.6.1996 (Annexure P1) passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Malerkotla (respondent No.4) whereby mutation No.20665 regarding inheritance of Parkash Chand (deceased) has been sanctioned in equal shares to the extent of 1/3^rd share each between Parmeshwari Devi mother of the deceased, Phullan Wati (respondent No.5) wife of the deceased and Sunita Garg @ Sumita Garg (respondent No.6) adopted daughter of the deceased.

¶17

CWP No. 5734 of 2008

¶18

¶19

The facts of the case are that Parkash Chand died on 16.1.1995. The Halqa Patwari while entering the mutation in addition to Parmeshwari Devi – mother of the deceased and Phullan Wati (respondent No.5) wife of the deceased also entered the name of Sunita Garg @ Sumita Garg adopted daughter of the deceased. The grievance of the petitioner is that in a suit filed by Sunita Garg @ Sumita Garg (respondent No.6), the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla vide judgment dated 24.4.2004 (Annexure P6) has held that the plaintiff -Sunita Garg @ Sumita Garg was never held to be an adopted daughter of Parkash Chand. A reference was made to an earlier judgment in which the then Additional District Judge, Sangrur had also held that Sunita Garg @ Sumita Garg was not the adopted daughter of Parkash Chand (deceased).

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that revenue authorities are bound by the orders and judgments of the Civil Court and mutation is liable to be sanctioned on the basis of the Civil Court judgment dated 24.4.2004 (Annexure P6).

¶21

In response, learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 has submitted that against the judgment and decree dated 24.4.2004 (Annexure P6), Civil Appeal No.44 dated 28.5.2004 has been filed which is pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur. Therefore, it is submitted that the Civil Court decree has no force. It is also submitted that Rajesh Kumar who has filed the present petition has no locus standi to file the same.

¶22

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the dispute relates to the inheritance of Parkash Chand (deceased) who died on 16.1.1995. At the time of his death, he was survived by his mother Parmeshwari Devi and his wife Phullan Wati (respondent No.5). Sunita Garg @ Sumita Garg (respondent No.6) calims to be an adopted daughter of Parkash Chand (deceased). The mutation has been sanctioned by the revenue authorities on the premise that respondent No.6 Sunita Garg @ Sumita Garg is an adopted

¶23

CWP No. 5734 of 2008

¶24

¶25

daughter of Parkash Chand (deceased). It may, however, be noticed that in terms of the judgment and decree dated 24.4.2004 (Annexure P6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla, Sunita Garg @ Sumita Garg (respondent No.6) has not been held to be an adopted daughter of Parkash Chand (deceased). The revenue authorities as is well-known are bound by the findings recorded by the Civil Court. The revenue authorities are not to question the propriety of a decree or order of a Civil Court. They are not to ascertain whether the judgment of a Civil Court is right or wrong. The matters and issues decided by a Civil Court are not to be re-opened by the revenue authorities by entertaining fresh evidence. A Revenue Officer in fact has no option but to follow a decree of the Civil Court and give effect to it while sanctioning mutation. As and when a declaration contrary to that recorded in a particular mutation on the basis of a civil Court decree is given on the basis of an appellate or revisional order of a higher Court, the mutations according to the decree of the higher Court are to be given effect to. In any case, the revenue officers are normally not to wait for a higher Court to give its decision. Mutation of a property in the revenue records are for fiscal purposes for maintaining the records. A mutation as recorded of a property in the revenue records does not create or extinguish title and is subject to the Civil Court decree that is ultimately passed.

¶26

The mutation of the estate of Parkash Chand (deceased) is, therefore, liable to be sanctioned on the basis of the Civil Court judgment and decree dated 24.4.2004 in favour of Parmeshwari Devi mother of the deceased and Phullan Wati (respondent No.5) wife of the deceased in equal shares. However, in case the appeal filed by Sunita Garg @ Sumita Garg (respondent No.6) against the judgment and decree dated 24.4.2004 succeeds, mutation would be entered in her name as well on the basis of decree that may be passed in the appeal.

¶27

CWP No. 5734 of 2008

¶28

¶29

As regards the locus standi of the petitioner who has filed the present appeal, it may be noticed that the petitioner claims a right to the property of Parkash Chand through Parmeshwari Devi who has since died. Parmeshwari Devi was the mother of the deceased Parkash Chand. The latter pre-deceased his mother Parmeshwari Devi and, therefore, she also succeeded to the estate of her son Parkash Chand. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to succeed to the estate of Parmeshwari Devi on the basis of a registered Will dated 26.11.1996 executed by her in his favour. The petitioner, it is stated, is the son of Brij Lal who was a brother of Parmeshwari Devi. The validity of the said Will of Parmeshwari Devi is pending consideration before the Civil Court. The present case does not relate to dispute of inheritance of Parmeshwari Devi. Therefore, no finding is liable to be given as to who is entitled to succeed to the estate of Parmeshwari Devi. In any case it cannot be said that the petitioner does not have the locus standi to file the writ petition.

¶30

In the circumstances, the impugned orders are quashed and the civil writ petition is disposed of by directing that the mutation of the estate of Parkash Chand (deceased) be entered in the name of Parmeshwari Devi mother of the deceased and Phullan Wati (respondent No.5) wife of the deceased in equal shares. However, in case the appeal filed by Sunita Garg @ Sumita Garg (respondent No.6) against the judgment and decree dated 24.4.2004 is accepted, the mutation would be changed accordingly.

¶31

(S.S. SARON) JUDGE

¶32

August 4, 2009 amit

Rajesh Kumar v. Financial Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. Financial Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Singh Vs Sukhi Ram and Ors.

Kans Raj Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ajit Singh Vs Financial Commissioner Punjab and Ors.

Basara Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Brij Lal Vs Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.

Ishwar Singh Vs State of Haryana etc.