NARESH GULATI, FC. - (1.) THESE are two revision petitions under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against the order dated 4.5.07 passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak.
(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that the husband of the petitioner died on 19.9.2000. The Halqa Patwari entered mutation No. 2204 regarding the property of the deceased Rajender in favour of Premo (Mother) and Suman Devi (Wife) in equal shares. The A.C. Ist Grade Sonipat also sanctioned the mutation vide his order dated 11.6.2000. On the basis of the above mutation, in village Kurrar Ibrahimpur regarding the property the mutation Nos. 3527 and 3528 were sanctioned by the AC Ist Grade Sonepat. Aggrieved with this order the respondents Jage and others filed two separate appeals before the Collector Sonipat who dismissed both the appeals vide his order dated 13.1.2005. Aggrieved with this, the respondents filed two revision petitions before the Commissioner, Rohtak Division who vide order dated 4.5.2007 accepted the revision and set aside the orders of both the lower courts and remanded the case back to the AC Ist Grade Sonipat with the direction that the petitioners (respondents) be given full opportunity to prove their case and decide the case on merit. Now the petitioner is before me in revision. The Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner Suman got married with Rajinder the son of the respondent Premo on 13.3.99 and Rajinder died on 19.9.2000. Thereafter, the Revenue authorities sanctioned mutations in favour of the petitioner and her mother-in-law to the tune of half share each. The respondents filed objections claiming themselves to be the sole owners. Thereafter the matter was referred to the AC Grade-I being a contested mutation. The respondent No. 1 produced a will allegedly executed by the petitioner's husband before his death and that too for the first time before AC Grade-I. The above said will is available on record which is having uneven space from the top to bottom which proves that the will is forged. The counsel for the petitioner submitted the citation of 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 134 titled as Baltej Singh v. Hamir Kaur, 2002(1) RCR(Civil) 448 titled as Ms. Radhika Khanna v. State, AC Ist Grade vide order dated 11.6.2002 ordered sanctioning of the mutation in favour of the petitioner and respondent No. 1 qua half share each by holding that a will which suffers from suspicion and disclosed after considerable delay has to be ignored. In appeal the Collector Sonipat has upheld the order. The Commissioner, Rohtak Division in his order dated 4.5.2007 in Para 5 duly agreed with the contentions of the petitioner regarding the circumstances of the will, but remanded the case back for evidence of the parties. It was never a case of the respondents that they have not been granted opportunity to lead evidence as the respondents were given full opportunity for leading evidence. The Scribe of the alleged will namely Ranpat was duly examined. There is no other witness as no whereabouts and detailed particulars of witnesses in the will have been given. It was prayed that impugned remand order of Commissioner may kindly be set aside.
(3.) THE Counsel for the respondents argued that the two revisions have been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4.5.2007 passed by the Commissioner Rohtak Division (Camp at Sonipat). The case was remanded back to AC Ist Grade with the direction to decide the case afresh on merits after granting due opportunity to the parties to prove their case. The said order was passed after taking into consideration the strained relations between the husband and wife and the pendency of the litigation in the High Court. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that the chances of execution of the 'will' cannot be ruled out. The petitioner has filed two revision petitions against the single order passed by the Commissioner on the ground that the will executed by Rajinder Singh is not a registered will and charge of murder was leveled against her in order to deprive her from inheriting the property. In fact if the facts, of the case are taken into consideration, it becomes abundantly clear that the marriage of the petitioner Suman took place with Rajinder Singh on 13.3.99 and after a period of 2-3 months she left her husband. On the night of 18.8.2000 Rajinder Singh is alleged to have been murdered. FIR was got registered against the petitioner Suman and others after the direction of the Court. In such circumstances Rajinder Singh who was facing extreme situation and threat to his life, might have executed a will in favour of his mother. The Commissioner has considered the evidence brought on the file. So far as the ply of the petitioner that the unregistered will cannot be treated as a reliable document is devoid of any merits, in view of the law laid down by High Court in judgement reported as 1994(3) RRR 106 : 1994 PLR 745 titled as Dhan Kaur v. Major Singh. In the above judgement it has been specifically laid down that there is no requirement of law that a will should be compulsorily registered. The will being registered or not registered or made one month prior to the 'death of the testator does not make any difference. The Counsel for the respondent submitted the citation 1999(4) RCR(Civil) 457 : 2000(2) PLR 380 titled as Punjab Kaur v. Mohinder Singh. The Counsel for the respondent also submitted that against the order of acquittal dated 10.10.2006, Criminal Revision No. 149 of 2007 titled as Premo v. Raj Singh and others is still pending in the High Court and as such even the acquittal of the petitioner cannot be termed as final.;