( 2026:HHC:4773 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2185/2026 Decided on: 27.02.2026 Birbal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Virender Sharma and Ms. Monika Singh, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. One Smt. Neeli Devi (sic Jamna Devi) died issueless. The Assistant Collector Second Grade Jalog, District Shimla attested Mutation No. 179 qua landed property of Smt. Neeli Devi (sic Jamna Devi) in favour of Sh. Birbal (the present petitioner). Feeling aggrieved against the attestation of Mutation No. 179, respondents No.5 to 18 filed an appeal before the Collector, Shimla (Rural). The appeal was dismissed on 27.05.2024. The private respondents carried the matter further in a revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2026:HHC:4773 ) The revision petition was allowed on 03.07.2025 and the case was remanded to the Assistant Collector Second Grade for fresh decision to be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) as also keeping in view the observations made in the order. Petitioner-beneficiary of Mutation No. 179, feels aggrieved against remand of the case and, therefore, has assailed the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. 2. Heard and considered the case file. 3. It is not in dispute that the land in question was inherited by Smt. Neeli Devi (sic Jamna Devi) from her father and that Smt. Neeli Devi (sic Jamna Devi) had died issueless. Section 15(2)(a) of the Act provides succession with respect to the property inherited by a Hindu female from her parents as under: – “15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.―(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,― (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),― (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased(including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs 3 ( 2026:HHC:4773 ) referred in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub- section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.” 4. As per Section 15(2)(a) of the Act, the property inherited by a Hindu female from her father (as is the present case) shall devolve in absence of any son or daughter of the deceased including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter (as is the present case) not upon the heirs referred to in Section 15(1) but upon the heirs of her father. Thus, succession of the property inherited by Smt. Neeli Devi (sic Jamna Devi) was to devolve upon heirs of her father, in accordance with Section 15(2)(a). This aspect of the matter has been concurrently held so by both the learned authorities i.e. the Collector as also the Financial Commissioner. The order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female under Section 15 will be governed by Section 16, Rule 3 as under: - “16. Order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu.―The order of succession among the heirs referred to in section 15 shall be, and the distribution of the intestate’s property among those heirs shall take place according to the following rules, namely:― 4 ( 2026:HHC:4773 ) Rule 1.―Among the heirs specified in sub-section (1) of section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry, and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously. Rule 2.―If any son or daughter of the intestate had pre- deceased the intestate leaving his or her own children alive at the time of the intestate’s death, the children of such son or daughter shall take between them the share which such son or daughter would have taken if living at the intestate’s death. Rule 3.―The devolution of the property of the intestate on the heirs referred to in clauses (b), (d) and (e) of sub- section (1) and in sub-section (2) of section 15 shall be in the same order and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the father’s or the mother’s or the husband’s as the case may be, and such person had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after the intestate’s death.” Thus, the property of the intestate devolving upon the heirs under Section 15(2) of the Act has to be in the same order and according to the same rules, which would have applied, had the property been that of the deceased father (as is the case), and as if such person had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after the death of the female intestate. This would have, in turn, attracted the general rules of succession provided under Section 8 of the Act. A perusal of the order passed by the Collector as also the Assistant Collector Second Grade makes it evident that the authorities had simply assumed the present petitioner to be sole heir under Section 15(2)(a) without undertaking any factual exercise or adverting to the other 5 ( 2026:HHC:4773 ) provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (the Act in short). The interplay of different provisions of the Hindu Succession Act vis-à- vis the facts of the case was not gone into by the Assistant Collector Second Grade while attesting the aforesaid mutation or by the Collector while passing the order dated 27.05.2024. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Financial Commissioner was, justified in accepting the revision petition, thereby quashing Mutation No. 179 and remanding the case to the Assistant Collector Second Grade with a direction to decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, keeping in view the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and the observations made in the order. In light of the above, I do not find any error in the order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 27th February, 2026(rohit)