JUDGMENT

Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral).—

1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners seek quashing of order dated 18.04.1995 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3 and order dated 12.05.2000 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.1 vide which orders passed by respondent No.4 & 2 have been set aside.

2. The dispute relates to mutation of estate of one Jora who had four daughters. Mutation qua his inheritance was entered on 07.04.1976 by Halka Patwari in favour of his four daughters on 07.02.1977. The respondents propounded a registered WILL dated 15.01.1976 claimed to have been executed in their favour by Jora.  The Assistant Collector conducted inquiry and vide order dated 22.10.1993 held that the WILL was surrounded by suspicious circumstances.

3. Private respondents preferred appeal before the Collector. The same was allowed vide order dated 18.04.1995. The petitioners thereafter preferred appeal before the Commissioner. Commissioner vide order dated 16.10.1998 (Annexure P-4) reversed the order passed by the Collector. The respondents thereafter challenged the same before the Financial Commissioner by way of ROR No.37 of 1998-1999. The Financial Commissioner vide impugned order dated 12.05.2000 allowed the revision petition holding that the legality and the validity of the WILL needs to be agitated before the Civil Court. Revenue authorities have no right to comment upon the validity of the WILL. Once the registered WILL was produced before the revenue authorities, they were bound to mutate the inheritance accordingly.

4. Mr. Malik, Advocate for the petitioners has assailed the findings recorded by the Financial Commissioner and the Collector and submits that the Financial Commissioner erred in reversing a well-reasoned order passed by the Commissioner. The petitioners proved before the Assistant Collector that the WILL was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the same was rightly discarded by Assistant Collector, First Grade yet the Collector as well as the Financial Commissioner have wrongly accepted the WILL. In order to hammer forth his contentions he relies upon judgments passed in Ram Piari Vs. Bhagwant & ors., 1990 (1) PLR 639, Sardara Singh (died) through his LRs Vs. Sadhu Singh, 1997 (3) RCR (Civil) 472 and Mohinder Singh Vs. Nagina, 1991 PLJ 763.

5. It is settled law that a propounder of the WILL has to prove the same and is also required to dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding the WILL (if any). However, the issue in the present writ petition is:-

"Whether the revenue authorities have jurisdiction to comment upon the validity of a registered WILL at the time of conducting summary inquiry as contemplated under Sections 34 and 36 of the Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short, 'the 1887 Act'?"

6. In order to appreciate the argument raised by Mr. Malik, Advocate for the petitioners the bare provision needs to be perused. Sections 34 and 36 of the 1887 Act read as under:-

"34. Making of that part of the annual record which relates to land-owners, assignees of revenue and occupancy tenants.-- (1) Any person acquiring, by inheritance, purchase, mortgage, or otherwise, any right in an estate as a land-owner, assignee of land-revenue or tenant having a right of occupancy, shall report his acquisition of the right to the patwari of the estate.

(2) If the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified. his guardian or other person having charge of his property shall make the report to the patwari.

(3) The patwari shall enter in his register of mutations every report made to him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), and shall also make an entry therein respecting the acquisition of any such right as aforesaid which he has reason to believe to have taken place, and which a report should have been made to him under one or other and has not been so made.

(4) A Revenue-officer shall from time to time inquire into the correctness of all entries in the register of mutations and into all such acquisitions as aforesaid coming to his knowledge of which, under the foregoing sub-sections, report should have been made to the patwari and entry made in that register and shall in each case make such order as he thinks fit with respect to the entry in the annual record of the right acquired.

(5) Such an entry shall be made by the insertion in that record of a description of the right acquired and by the omission from that record of any entry in any record previously prepared which by reason of the acquisition has ceased to be correct. "

XXX   XXX     XXX

36. Determination of disputes.-- (1) If during the making, revision or preparation of any record or in the course of any enquiry under this Chapter a dispute arises as to any matter of which an entry is to be made in a record or in a register of mutations, a Revenue-officer may of his own motion, or on the application of any party interested but subject to the provisions of the next following section, and after such inquiry as he thinks fit, determine the entry to be made as to that matter.

(2) If in any such dispute the Revenue-officer is unable to satisfy himself as to which of the parties thereto is in possession of any property to which the dispute relates, he shall ascertain by summary inquiry who is the person best entitled to the property, and shall by order direct that that person be put in possession thereof, and that an entry in accordance with that order be made in the record or register.

(3) A direction of a Revenue-officer under sub-section (2) shall be subject to any decree or order which may be subsequently passed by any Court of competent jurisdiction. "

7. From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions oflaw, evidently the Revenue Authorities are required to update annual records with respect to inheritance, sale and other transfers. Once a document is produced before the Revenue Authorities whereupon applicant seeks mutation, the Revenue Authorities have right to conduct the summary inquiry but have no jurisdiction to comment upon the validity of a registered document.

8. In view thereof, this Court finds no reason to interfere in a well-reasoned order passed by Financial Commissioner. Writ petition is dismissed.

9. However liberty is granted to the petitioners to avail their civil remedy in accordance with law. In case any such remedy is pursued, any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of this case, as this Court has not tested the validity or legality of the WILL.

10. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed off.

Petition dismissed

********