Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur Petitioner v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana And Others S

Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral)

Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 21.01.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by Financial Commissioner, Haryana - respondent no. 1 whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner has been adjourned sine die till the decision of this Court in RSA.

Brief facts of the case are that Gurbachan Singh @ Bachan Singh son of Kartar Singh had executed registered Will dated 28.06.1980 On his death, mutation was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the Will by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Naraingarh vide order dated 07.10.1980 Against that, Gurnam Singh, predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos. 2 to 4 filed an appeal before District Collector, but during the pendency of the appeal, Gurnam Singh also filed civil suit claiming the property to be of Sis Satluj Jagir. Vide order dated 26.05.1981, the Collector adjourned the appeal sine die to await the decision of the civil court. Ultimately, the civil suit filed by Gurnam Singh was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.2004 and appeal preferred by Gurnam Singh was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2007 Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application before the District Collector for revival of appeal. Vide order dated 18.07.2008 (Annexure P/4), the Collector dismissed the appeal filed by Gurnam Singh, predecessor-in-interest of respondents no. 2 to 4. Thereafter, revision petition filed by respondent nos. 2 to 4 was also dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 31.03.2009 (Annexure P/5). Respondent nos. 2 to 4 filed ROR No. 690 of 2008-09 before Financial Commissioner, Haryana alleging that RSA against the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as first appellate Court is pending in the High Court. The Financial Commissioner vide order dated 21.02.2013 (Annexure P/1) adjourned the revision petition sine die. Hence, this writ petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

On perusal of the record, it is clear that two RSAs i.e RSA No. 1744 of 2011 titled as Gurdeep Singh v. Jeet Singh and RSA No. 3051 of 2011 titled as Jeet Singh v. Gurdeep Singh are pending in this Court. The issue involved in the present writ petition is whether the pendency of RSAs would warrant sine die adjournment of proceedings before the Financial Commissioner which arise out of sanction of mutation on the basis of Will. It is well settled law that inheritance can never be in abeyance, it devolves on the legal heirs under law the moment the person dies and mutation does not create any right or title. If any party feels aggrieved, then it can approach the civil court. In the present case, the parties are already before the civil Court. Civil suit and appeal have already been decided by the trial Court and first appellate Court whereby suit preferred by predecessor-in-interest of respondents no. 2 to 4 has already been dismissed and matter is pending before this Court in regular second appeals. Final outcome of the civil proceedings will decide the rights of the parties. Thereafter, the parties can approach the revenue authorities for correction in the revenue record on the basis of final decision of civil court.

In view of above, instant writ is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The Financial Commissioner is directed to decide the revision petition on merits after hearing the parties. It is made clear that if respondents no. 2 to 4 succeed in RSA, they will be at liberty to seek correction of mutation entries and the revenue record accordingly.

No costs.