G.S.SANDHU, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition, under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, against order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.
(2.) THE brief facts of this case are, that, mutation No. 8466 of village Nadala, Tehsil Bholath, District Kapurthala, regarding inheritance of deceased, Kashmir Singh son of Tek Singh, was entered on the basis of unregistered Will dated 10.9.1999. Being contested it was forwarded to AC 1st (SDM), Bholath for decision, but later on, an application from one party, the case was transferred to AC 1st (SDM) Kapurthala for decision. Kashmir Singh, deceased executed two unregistered Wills, one dated 10.9.1999 in favour of his son Harbhajan Singh alone and the other unregistered Will dated 30.6.2001 in favour of Harbhajan Singh (son), Jasbir Kaur (daughter) and Ninder Kaur (wife) in equal share. After hearing both the parties, the AC 1st Kapurthala, vide his order dated 25.2.2003 held the unregistered Will dated 10.9.1999 as a genuine and valid document and sanctioned mutation, in question, in favour of Harbhajan Singh (deceased). Aggrieved by this order, Jasbir Kaur filed an appeal before Collector, Kapurthala, and the Collector, Kapurthala vide his order dated 22.7.2003 accepted the appeal and set aside the order of AC 1st dated 25.2.2003 and sanctioned the mutation in favour of all natural heirs of Kashmir Singh. Not satisfied by this order Harbhajan Singh deceased through LRs, filed an appeal before Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who, vide his order dated 20.10.2005 accepted the same and set aside the order dated 22.7.2003 passed by Collector, Kapurthala and upheld the order dated 25.2.2003 passed by the AC 1st Grade, Kapurthala. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. I have heard the Counsels for the parties. The Counsel for the petitioner mentioned that the Collector vide his order 22.7.2003 had correctly decided the mutation on the basis of natural succession as doubts have arisen regarding the genuineness of unregistered Will. The Counsel further mentioned that the Commissioner's order dated 20.10.2005 vide which Collector Kapurthala's order have been set aside do not giving any tangible reasons for ignoring the natural heirs. Just because the daughter had got married without the consent of her father cannot be deemed logical for ignoring her succession rights. He further mentioned that the Collector in his order dated 22.7.2003 has given adequate reason as to why the mutation should be sanctioned on the basis of natural succession. The Counsel for the respondent mentioned that Will is not a compulsorily registerable document and the AC 1st Grade after going through the entire evidence had come to the conclusion that the Will in favour of respondents is a genuine document, on the basis of which mutation had been sanctioned in favour of the respondents. The Counsel mentioned that as the daughter is not keeping cordial relations with her father on account of marrying outside the caste, the father had rightly ignored her in the Will. I have considered the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It is a settled law that mutation proceeding being summary in nature, the Revenue Officer is not supposed to go into the indicate question of law. It is also a settled law that in case of unregistered Will where any doubt arises, the Revenue Officer is to sanction mutation as per natural succession and the party beneficiary of an unregistered Will is required to go to the Court of competent jurisdiction for getting the legality of Will certified. In the instant case enough doubts have been raised regarding the execution of the unregistered Will. These reasons have been discussed adequately in the order of Collector dated 22.7.2003. Both AC 1st Grade and the Commissioner have erred in going into intricate details while deciding the mutation. It is almost mandatory for a Revenue Officer to sanction such mutation in favour of natural heirs and leave the aggrieved party to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition is accepted and order of Commissioner dated 20.10.2005 is set aside, mutation, as decided by Collector vide his order dated 22.7.2003, is restored. Announced. Petition allowed.;