ORDER

Mr. R.P.S. Pawar, Financial Commissioner.-- The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 14.1.2001 of the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.

2. The facts In brief of the petition are that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mohali ordered the mutation No. 603 of village Siahi Majra Hadbast No. 9, Tehsil Mohali, District Roop Nagar to be sanctioned in favour of Rajinder Singh son of Kabul Singh for 0 Kanal 14 Marlas and about the remaining land in favour of Gurmeet Kaur widow, Inderjit Singh- Harjit Singh Rana-Surjit Singh Mano and Ranjit Singh sons of Joginder Singh, all in equal shares. The District Collector also dismissed the appeal with the observation that the appellants have failed to prove that the agreement and un-registered will in favour of Rajinder Singh were fabricated and not genuine. When both orders were challenged in revision petition, the Divisional Commissioner gave a considered finding and held that the lower courts have failed to apply their judicious mind to the relevant aspects of the case. The operative portion of the order of the Divisional Commissioner reads as follows:-

‘I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that the will dated 10.3.89 in favour of the petitioner has been proved by the marginal witnesses and the scribe of the will. The lower courts have sanctioned the mutation on the basis of a will dated 30.10.90 which is not a will but it is an agreement to sell. Moreover, a photocopy has been placed on the file only and original document dated 30.10.90 has never been produced on the file. The Revenue Officers are bound to sanction mutation on the basis of a registered document. If any party is aggrieved from that order it can go before the civil court. I also find that there is nothing mentioned in the document dated 30.10.90 regarding the cancellation of the registered will dated 10.3.89. The petitioners are the natural legal heirs of the deceased, Joginder Singh. Both the lower courts have not applied their judicious mind. Accordingly, the petition is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the A.C. 1st Grade, Mohali for a fresh decision”.

3. I have listened to the arguments besides perusing the file in detail. The parties have set up two separate wills. One will has been set up by the petitioner, which is un-registered alongwith an agreement to sell in his favour, The other will has been set up by respondents which is registered and which has not been relied upon both by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade as well as by the District Collector. The Divisional Commissioner has held that the will dated 10.3.1989 has been proved by the marginal witnesses and the scribe of the will. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade as well as the District Collector have sanctioned the mutation on the basis of will dated 30.10.1990, which in fact is an agreement to sell and not a will. He has also held that only photocopy has been placed on file whereas the original document has not been produced. In arguments both these facts have gone unrebutted. The Divisional Commissioner has, therefore, rightly set aside the orders of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade as well as of the District Collector since both are based on a document which has not been produced in original. In view of the above, I am unable to find any merit in this revision petition, which may call for my interference with the well-reasoned order of the Divisional Commissioner. The same is, accordingly, upheld and the revision petition is dismissed. The parties are advised to appear before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mohali on 22.1.2004 for fresh decision. To be communicated & recorded.

Revision dismissed.

********