Mit Singh and Kehar Singh vs Amarpreet Kaur and Kartar Kaur

K.S. Narang, F.C.

This is a revision petition under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act against the order dated 4th November, 1981 of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, who rejected the revision petition of the petitioners, concerning mutation No. 238 of village Dumchhari, tehsil Rup Nagar, relating to the inheritance of Jagat Singh.

Brief facts of the case are that Surjit Singh, father of Amarpreet Kaur (Respondent No. 1) approached the patwari on 6th February, 1976 and informed that Jagat Singh son of Jaimal Singh had died on 25th January, 1976, and that the deceased had adopted Amarpreet Kaur as his daughter, vide a registered Adoption Deed dated 26th May, 1971. Before the Assistance Collector, Kehar Singh (one of the nephews) raised the objection and contested the claim of Amarpreet Kaur. The mutation being contested one came up before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade (S.D.O. Civil) Rup Nagar, who by his order dated 16th January, 1979, relied upon the Adoption Deed and sanctioned the mutation in favour of Amarpreet Kaur. Mit Singh (Petitioner) filed an appeal before the Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Rup Nagar, who remanded the case on 27.6.1979 for fresh decision. On remand, the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade again by his order dated 21.11.1980 sanctioned the mutation in favour of Amarpreet Kaur. Mit Singh filed an appeal before the Collector, Rup Nagar, who upheld the order of the Assistant Collector and dismissed the appeal, by his order dated 21st April, 1981. Mit Singh, Kehar Singh (petitioners) filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, who dismissed it by his impugned order dated the 4th November, 1981. The petitioners have now filed this revision petition.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The revision petition is barred by limitation of 35 days, which remains unexplained. Anyhow, the learned counsel has been heard on merits also. His contention is that the Revenue Officers unjustifiably relied on the Adoption Deed which should have been subjected to the test of evidence and proof by the attesting witnesses. I see no valid reason in the views put forward by this learned counsel, in the light of well reasoned orders of the subordinate Revenue Officers, who have concurrently and correctly relied upon the registered Adoption Deed. It is on record that this very Adoption Deed has been held genuine by the Civil Court and even appeal against the order of the Civil Court was rejected by the District Judge. Even if the petitioners have gone to the High Court in second appeal, it does not in any way debar the Revenue Officer to act upon the registered Adoption Deed, unless and until it is declared invalid by the competent Court. A Revenue Officer is not to go into intricate questions about the validity of such a registered document, in mutation proceedings unless there is verdict to the contrary by the competent Court declaring specifically such a registered document as invalid. With this view, I am supported by the ruling of Shri A.L. Fletcher, I.C.S., Financial Commissioner, Punjab, reported in 1955 LLT16 Re: Nand Lal and another v. Hans Raj.

For the reasons given above, I find no force in the revision petition and hereby reject it in limine.

To be communicated.