ROMILA DUBEY - (1.) THIS revision petition is under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 against the order dated 24.4.2003 of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar whereby he partly accepted the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 Jasbir Singh against the order dated 23.10.2001 of Collector (ADC) Amritsar.
(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that Parkash Kaur wife of Kartar Singh died issueless. Mutation No. 1576 of village Mallah regarding inheritance of Parkash Kaur was entered by the Patwari Halqa on the basis of unregistered Will dated 20.5.1999 and presented the same to A.C.II Khadoor Sahib for attestation who forwarded the same to A.C.1 for disposal because he had no jurisdiction to decide such mutations. The A.C.I Khadoor Sahib after recording the evidence and considering the claims of both the parties, sanctioned the mutation in favour of Surindar Singh present respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 10.7.1999. Jasbir Singh the present Respondent No. 1 impugned this order before the Collector by filing an appeal, who vide his order dated 22.2.2000 accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to A.C.I Khadoor Sahib for fresh decision after recording evidence of both the parties. It was observed by Collector that the respondent, No. 1 Surindar Singh is in possession of registered Will dated 8.11.1978 executed by Parkash Kaur during her life time and as such Jasbir Singh being a necessary party should be heard before sanctioning the mutation. On remand the A.C.I after recording the evidence of both the parties and examining the entire evidence found that Jasbir Singh has not brought any witness to prove the Will dated 8.11.1978. He therefore sanctioned the mutation in favour of Surindar Singh the present respondent No. 2 on the basis of unregistered Will dated 20.5.1999 vide his order dated 22.12.2000. Jasbir Singh impugned this order before the Collector-cum-ADC, Amritsar, who after hearing the both parties partially accepted the appeal vide his order dated 23.10.2001 on the ground that both the Wills are not free from suspicious circumstances and therefore no reliance can be placed on both the. Wills. He therefore set aside the order dated 22.12.2000 of A.C.I and sanctioned the mutation of Parkash Kaur in favour of her natural heirs under section 15 of the Hindu succession Act 1956. Still aggrieved,Jasbir Singh filed revision before the Commissioner, who accepted the same on 22.4.2003 setting aside the order of Collector and A.C.I. Hence the present revision petition. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds taken in the revision petition and argued that they were not impleaded as necessary party before the Commissioner and matter before the Commissioner was agitated between the two beneficiaries of the two different Wills. The counsel stated that while the A.C.I sanctioned the mutation of inheritance of Parkash Kaur vide his order dated 22.12.2700 in favour of Surindar Singh present respondent No.2 on the basis of Will dated 20.5.1999, discarding the Will dated 8.11.78 propounded by Jasbir Singh the present respondent No.1; the Collector discarded both the Wills. The counsel contended that both the Wills are shrouded by suspicious circumstances and the Collector Amritsar in his order dated 23.10.2001 has rightly discarded both the Wills and ordered the sanctioning of the mutation in favour of her natural heirs under section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act . The Counsel contended that matter before the Commissioner was between beneficiaries of two different Wills and all the legal heirs of Parkash kaur were not deliberately impleaded before the Commissioner. He therefore prayed to accept the present revision petition and set aside the order of the Commissioner.
(3.) ON the other hand Sh. A.S.Gill, Adv. counsel for the respondent No. 1 argued that from the very first day the dispute was between respondent No. 1 and 2. The A.C.I while sanctioning the mutation in favour of respondent No. 2, vide order dated 19.7.99, did not issue notice to respondent No. 1 in whose favour Parkash Kaur executed a registered Will dated 8.11.78 and therefore, the Collector rightly remanded the case to A.C.I for fresh decision. But the A.C.I again sanctioned the mutation on the basis of unregistered Will dated 20.5.1999. The counsel further stated that the petitioners never challenged any of the two Wills and have come up only first time before this court. Sh. A.S. Walia, counsel for respondent No. 4, 5, 6 and Sh. N.C. Doabia, counsel for respondent No. 7, 8 and 9 are not present.;