IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.11504 of 2025 Decided on: 31.03.2026 _________________________________________________________________ Braham Dass and Ors. ....Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors . …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 5(a) to 5(d). Respondents No. 6 to 9 ex-parte. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge A mutation entered and attested in favour of Sh. Tulsi Ram, predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 5(a) to 5(d) & 6 to 9 was unsuccessfully assailed by the petitioners before the Sub Divisional Collector, Hamirpur, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes - 2 - H.P. as also before the Divisional Commissioner Mandi [exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Shimla]. Feeling aggrieved against the orders passed by these two Authorities as also the attestation of mutation, petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. The parties have dispute pertaining to succession of estate of late Sh. Dhimi Chand S/o Khajana S/o Ghonu. A mutation bearing No.417 qua the estate of Sh. Dhimi Chand was attested on 24.05.2003 in favour of Sh. Tulsi Ram s/o Khajana S/o Ghonu. Present petitioners, who are sons of Sh. Jat S/o Khajana S/o Ghonu, filed an appeal under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (the Act in short) against the order dated 24.05.2003 passed on mutation No. 417 before the Sub Divisional Collector Hamirpur, H.P., inter-alia, on the grounds of breach of principles of natural justice and also on the ground that the petitioners had already preferred a Civil Suit, claiming the share which their uncle Sh. Dhimi Chand had in the suit property. The Sub Divisional Collector dismissed the appeal - 3 - on 31.03.2010 primarily on the grounds of delay in institution of appeal. The Sub Divisional Collector also held the mutation to have been rightly attested in view of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred a Revision Petition under Section 17 of the Act before the Divisional Commissioner Mandi. The said Authority while exercising the powers of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), dismissed the petition on 28.03.2025, confirming the order passed by the Sub Divisional Collector. It was held in the impugned order that succession to the property of late Sh. Dhimi Chand would be governed by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and not under Section 6 as claimed by the petitioners. That mutation had been correctly attested as per the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act as the property of late Sh. Dhimi Chand had to devolve only upon class-II heirs. It was also observed that there had been no infraction of principles of natural justice. Insofar as petitioners’ contention of the issue of devolution of property either under Section 6 or Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act being subject matter of Civil Suit - 4 - No. 71/2003 was concerned, the Divisional Commissioner held that the issue did not survive as the Civil Suit filed by the petitioners had been dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Court No.2, Hamirpur on 24.08.2012. Vide interim order dated 18.07.2025 passed in this petition, operation of order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner was stayed. 4. It is an admitted position of the parties that the aforementioned Civil Suit has by now traversed to this Court in form of Regular Second Appeal No. 481 of 2015 titled Braham Dass and Ors Vs. Rikhi Ram and Ors. . The parties before the Revenue Courts are also the parties in the Regular Second Appeal. It is not in dispute that subject matter of the Regular Second Appeal pertains to succession of the property of late Sh. Dhimi Chand, more specifically, as to whether the estate/property of late Sh. Dhimi Chand is to be devolved under Section 6 or Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Given the above admitted position, the observations on merits of the matter made by the Sub Divisional Collector in the order dated 31.03.2010 and by the Divisional Commissioner in the order dated 28.03.2025 viz - 5 - succession to the property of late Sh. Dhimi Chand under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act have to be held as non-est conclusions. It is well settled that orders passed by the Revenue Authorities/Courts have to give way to the findings/judgments of the Civil Courts. Once the matter in issue qua which the Revenue Courts have rendered the findings, is pending adjudication in the Civil Suit, it is the findings of the Civil Courts that will govern the subject. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, the entry and attestation of mutation No.417 has to be construed only as an administrative act of the Revenue Officials for filling the vacuum in the revenue record and nothing more. The mutation and its entries will be governed by the final orders to be passed by the Civil Courts. In view of above, the observations/findings returned on merits of the matter by the Sub Divisional Collector as also by the Divisional Commissioner in the impugned orders shall be treated as non-est. In the interest of justice, notwithstanding attestation of mutation No. 417, the parties shall continue to maintain status quo as on date qua nature, possession and title of the suit property, till the - 6 - decision of Regular Second Appeal. The entry and attestation of mutation No.417 shall abide by final outcome of RSA No.481 of 2015. 5. The present writ petition to stand disposed of in the above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March 31, 2026 R.Atal