Hurri vs State Of Haryana And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 992 P&H

119     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                 CWP No. 3244 of 2021
                                 DATE OF DECISION : 09.03.2021

Hurri                                                       ...Petitioner
                                 Versus
State of Haryana and others                                 ...Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present :    Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Ms. MamtaTalwar, DAG, Haryana.

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

Grievance of the petitioner herein is qua remanding of the matter

for fresh consideration by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade and to decide the

mutation entries in the revenue record qua property of the deceased namely late

Bhullu. While remanding the matter, learned Collector vide impugned order

dated 08.02.2012 (Annexure P-2) recorded following reasons for doing so:

"After hearing the arguments of the counsel of appellants and perused the original record of the lower court and thereafter it was found that neither Bhullu's death certificate is available on file nor the evidence has been led to prove the will. Therefore, I remand the case to Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hathin with direction to evidence of both the parties be taken on record and opportunity of hearing be given to both the parties and thereafter the case be decided on merits and parties are directed to appear on 22.02.2012 in the court of Assistant Collector Ist grade Hathin."

2. An appeal filed against the above order of the Collector before the

Commissioner was decided against the petitioner and the same was also

1 of 3

dismissed and so was the fate in the revision petition preferred by him before

learned Financial Commissioner.

3. Having perused the reasoned order passed by learned Collector, I

also do not find any ground to interfere.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that in view

of the findings recorded by the Assistant Collector based on the evidence

adduced by the parties, the superior authorities could not remand the matter by

observing that same be decided afresh after recording evidence of the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments

relies on judgments passed by this Court in case titled as "Deen Mohammad

Vs. Reshmi and others"reported as 2015(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 238 and "Taj

Mohammad Vs. Alyas (Minor)"reported as 1997(2) HLR 96.

6. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner does not

controvert that the parties are also at lis before the Civil Court vide a civil suit

instituted seeking declaration by the respondents that they be declared

collateral heirs of the deceased father of the petitioner and accordingly property

be mutated in their favour.

7. On a query of the Court, learned counsel also apprises that the

learned Trial Court has specifically dismissed an injunction application filed by

the private respondents whereby they have sought a restraint against the

petitioner not to interfere in their possession qua the land in question vide an

order dated 31.10.2008 (Annexure P-5).

8. In the premise, I am of the view that ultimately rights of the

parties would be crystalized depending on the outcome of civil suit and merely

a mutation entry will not confer any right on either of the parties.

9. That being the position, I find no fault with impugned orders for

remand the matter which is under challenge before this Court.

2 of 3

10. However, it is made clear that status quo qua title of property shall

be maintained during the pendency of court proceedings subject to the final

outcome thereof.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that

though the civil suit has been filed by the private respondents seeking

declaration that they be declared as collateral of the deceased father of the

petitioner, however as per his information, on the last date of hearing, none

appeared for them and the said suit had, therefore, been dismissed in default.

12. It is made clear that in case, no application for restoration of suit

is filed, interim protection given by this Court which is to operate till the Civil

Suit attains finality and shall automatically stand vacated thereafter.

13. Disposed of with above observations.

MARCH 09, 2021                                         (ARUN MONGA)
Shalini/vandana                                            JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned:                Yes/No

Whether reportable:                       Yes/No




                                 3 of 3