Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal Singh And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 July, 2022
CWP-13854-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-13854-2022 (O&M)
Reserved on: 01.07.2022
Pronounced on: 06.07.2022
Satpal Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana.
******
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Prayer in this petition is for quashing of impugned order dated
18.05.2022 passed by respondent No.3-Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant
Collector 2nd Grade, Ambala Cantt, vide which representation of the
petitioners dated 10.10.2021 was rejected in pursuance to the directions
given by this Court in CWP-4904-2022 vide order dated 12.05.2022.
1 of 11
On 30.06.2022, while issuing notice of motion, following order
was passed: -
"...Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that
disputed land, at one point of time, was owned by one Ami
Singh, who died issueless and his wife Kalehri also died
issueless on 19.09.1955. It is further submitted that Kalehri
executed a Will in favour of her alleged adopted son Bhondu.
The petitioners are sons/grandsons of Thakar Singh son of
Bhondu and are owners of the land in dispute on the basis of
Will dated 09.06.1917, which has been upheld by the Civil
Court upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also submitted that
initially, a suit was filed by the proprietary body of the village
claiming a right over the property, as Kalehri died issueless and
similarly, three suits were filed for redemption of the mortgage
deed, which was allegedly created by Smt. Kalehri.
Learned senior counsel has referred to judgment of the
Civil Court dated 14.08.1978, wherein issue No.7 with regard
to Will was upheld in favour of Bhondu. He further referred to
judgment of the lower appellate Court (Additional Sessions
Judge, Ambala) dated 10.01.1980, wherein the findings
recorded by the Civil Court with regard to aforesaid Will
Ex.D3, were upheld by making the following observations: -
2 of 11
"...As such the principle of homogeneity was not
applicable in the villages. It follows from it that the
widow of Amit Singh namely Kalhari inherited full
proprietary rights on the death of her husband as well as
on the death of Hanso. There was absolutely no bar or
responsibilities upon her to have any Will in favour of
anybody she liked. In these circumstances, the Will made
by Shrimati Kalhari Ex.D3, conferred all rights upon
Bhondu which could acquire under Will. On his death,
the rights were acquired by Thakur Singh and the present
defendant-respondents have stepped into the shows of
Thakur Singh. For those reasons, I uphold the conclusion
arrived at by the learned trial Court, though for different
reasons."
It is further submitted that later on, four Regular Second
Appeals were filed, which were decided together by this Court
vide order dated 13.09.2006 and while upholding the Will in
favour of Bhondu, the appeals were dismissed. The operative
part of the judgment passed in RSAs reads as under: -
"...In the absence of any other heir, the reversionary right
in the estate of Ami Singh could not be claimed by
anyone. Therefore, Kalahari, wife of Amit Singh, would
3 of 11
succeed as owner of the estate of her husband. The
plaintiffs cannot claim any interest in the estate of
deceased Amit Singh as he cannot be said to have died
issueless and without any heir as Bhondu is the legal heir
under a valid Will. Thus, as an owner, Kalahari was
competent to execute the Will in favour of Bhondu. Thus,
in respect of first substantial question of law, it is held
that Kalahari would succeed as complete owner of the
estate of her husband.
In respect of second substantial question of law, it
may be seen that in Riwaj-i-am Exhibit P-5, the question
which is sought to be answered is that if a person who
dies without any issue and any Will (emphasis supplied),
then who will succeed to his estate i.e. government or
Patti or Taraf or Shamlat deh etc., or proprietors. The
answer recorded is that the first right is of the proprietors
of the Tholla, Patti and Shamlat deh in which the
deceased has died. The proprietors of the same Gotar
and the community of which the deceased reside in
Tholla, Patti or Shamlat deh will succeed in the first
instance. If there is anybody from the Gotar, then it goes
to the community. The State has no right in the presence
4 of 11
of people of the Gotra and the community. In the
judgment reported as Badaman and others Vs. Net Ram
alias Lali and others, 57 Punjab 1914, it was found that
the general rule is that in the event of a proprietor dying
without heirs, his estate ordinarily escheats to
Government. When the plaintiffs claim a declaratory
decree of right to succeed to the property of the deceased,
they are bound to show that this general rule does not
apply to their case. In the present case, Riwaj-i-am
mentioned above is of no assistance to the appellants as
the deceased has died leaving behind his widow who is
absolute owner of the property in the absence of any
reversioners. Thus, in respect of second substantial
question of law, it is held that the plaintiffs cannot
succeed to the estate of deceased Bhondu or Kalahari as
she had died after the execution of a valid Will.
Thus, in view of my findings on substantial
questions of law, I do not find any merit in the present
appeal which is dismissed."
Learned senior counsel has also submitted that later on,
SLP (Civil) No.8072/2007 filed against the judgment dated
13.09.2006 was also dismissed on 16.05.2007. It is next
5 of 11
submitted that grievance of the petitioners is that despite the
verdict given by the Civil Court, which is upheld upto the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the revenue authorities are not
sanctioning the mutation, therefore, they filed CWP-4904-2022,
in which the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala was directed to
appear before the Coordinate Bench and on 12.05.2022,
respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Ambala gave an
undertaking that representation of the petitioners will be
decided by passing a speaking order. Accordingly, the impugned
order dated 18.05.2022 has been passed by the Assistant
Collector 2nd Grade-cum-Naib Tehsildar, Ambala Cantt.
rejecting representation of the petitioners.
It is further submitted that in total disgrace to judgment
of the Civil Court, which is upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, Assistant Collector 2nd Grade-cum-Naib Tehsildar,
Ambala Cantt. recorded his own finding that when the mutation
application was given by Thakar Singh, same was objected by
certain proprietors of the village and mutations were
sanctioned in favour of proprietary body i.e. Malkan
Jailkardeon 10.04.1961 and 02.02.1962, therefore, once these
mutations were incorporated in the revenue record, same can
only be set aside in terms of Section 45 of Punjab Land Revenue
6 of 11
Act in a suit for declaration of right under the Specific Relief
Act with regard to correction in the entry in the record.
On the face of it, the observations made in the impugned
order are not only incorrect, but amount to contemptuous
approach adopted by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade-cum-
Naib Tehsildar, as it is apparent from the record of civil
litigation that the declaration has already been given in favour
of predecessor of Bhondu that Kalehri had executed a valid Will
on 09.06.1917 and he was succeeded by Thakar Singh, who is
predecessor of the petitioners..."
In pursuance of the aforesaid order, Mr. Yashwant Singh, Naib
Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Ambala Cantt is present in the
Court and on his instructions, learned State counsel submits that the
impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioners for non-sanctioning of
mutation is based on two reasons: -
(a) When the mutation No.543 pertaining to Village Khuda and
mutation No.735 pertaining to Village Manglai were sanctioned
in the year 1967, Thakur Singh gave an application for
sanctioning the mutation on the basis of Will dated 09.06.1917,
but it is mentioned in those proceedings that Thakur Singh
stated that he has no objection, if the mutations are entered in
the name of Malkan Jailkarde. Since Bhondu died before Smt.
7 of 11
Kalheri, lower appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge,
Ambala held that adoption of Bhondu by Kalheri is not proved.
(b) There is no declaratory decree in terms of Section 45 of Punjab
Land Revenue Act, setting aside aforesaid two mutations dated
10.04.1961 and 02.02.1962, therefore, mutations cannot be
sanctioned on the basis of judgment and decree referred to
above.
Learned State counsel further submits that Naib Tehsildar-cum-
Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Ambala Cantt do not want to file an affidavit
to this effect, as the same is already mentioned in the impugned order.
In reply, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, in support of
his arguments, has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Sube Singh Vs.
Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana, 2001 (4) RCR (Civil) 766,
to submit that it has been held by the Division Bench that the approach
adopted by the revenue authorities ignoring the decree of Civil Court, merely
because a subsequent suit is pending, is erroneous, as the revenue authorities
have to sanction the mutation on the basis of Civil Court decree.
Learned senior counsel has further relied upon another judgment
of Division Bench of this Court in Bachan Singh and others Vs. Financial
Commissioner, Appeal (I), Punjab and others, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 887,
wherein a similar view has been taken that the order passed by the Civil
Court is binding on the revenue authorities and there is no requirement of a
8 of 11
formal direction for incorporating the verdict of the Civil Court in the
revenue record by sanctioning the mutation.
Learned senior counsel has also relied upon judgment in Baljit
Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab,
Chandigarh and others, 2012 (2) RCR (Civil) 384, wherein this Court has
held that where under Section 34 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, mutation of
inheritance is sanctioned ignoring the Civil Court decree, a revenue officer
has no jurisdiction to disregard the judgment and decree passed by the Civil
Court.
Learned senior counsel has next relied upon judgment in Rajesh
Kumar Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, 2009 (11) RCR (Civil)
316, wherein this Court held that the mutations according to decree of the
Court are to be given effect, even if an appeal is pending against the decree
and the revenue authorities are not bound to wait for order of the Court.
It is argued that in this case, both the proprietary body as well as
private individuals, who were contesting against the petitioners, lost their
cases upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, on all counts, Naib
Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Ambala Cantt has erroneously
ignored the Civil Court decree, as upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It
is further submitted that the ground taken by Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant
Collector 2nd Grade, Ambala Cantt is that earlier mutations sanctioned in the
year 1961-62 were already put up as defence before the Civil Court and once
9 of 11
the Will dated 09.06.1917 in favour of Bhondu was upheld, those two
mutations No.543 and 735 loose their sanctity. It is also argued that during
the aforesaid mutation proceedings, it is recorded that Thakur Singh made
some concession, also stands tested by the Civil Court and this ground was
never upheld by the Civil Court.
The next ground taken by Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant
Collector 2nd Grade, Ambala Cantt that no specific suit for declaration under
Section 45 of Punjab Land Revenue Act has been filed challenging the
mutations and for setting aside the same, is totally illogical and illegal, as
once the decree has been passed, in which predecessor of the petitioners
Bhondu was held to be owner of the land by way of Will dated 09.06.1917, it
amounts to declaration regarding their title over the land in dispute.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the
present writ petition. None of the reasons given in the impugned order dated
18.05.2022 passed by Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade,
Ambala Cantt are sustainable in the eyes of law, in view of the observations
made above.
Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Ambala
Cantt has daringly ignored the judgment of the Civil Court, holding the Will
dated 09.06.1917 to be a valid Will in favour of predecessor of the
petitioners and this finding is upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Therefore, it is duty of revenue officials to incorporate the decree in the
10 of 11
revenue record in letter and spirit and the impugned order dismissing the
application for entering the mutations, cannot be upheld in any manner.
Though this Court finds that the impugned order has been passed to violate
the mandate of the decree, however, instead of initiating contempt
proceedings, one opportunity is granted to Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant
Collector 2nd Grade, Ambala Cantt to pass a fresh order, strictly in
compliance of the decree dated 14.08.1978, as upheld upto the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned order
dated 18.05.2022 is set aside and Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd
Grade, Ambala Cantt is directed to sanction the mutations in terms of the
Civil Court decree dated 14.08.1978 in letter and spirit, within a period of 15
days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
06.07.2022 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
11 of 11
