The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mutation of land cannot be set aside solely based on the respondent not being heard, especially when the petitioner is the sole legal heir and the respondent has not taken steps to establish his rights.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 17-8-2001 passed by the Board of Revenue and the judgment dated 5-1-1994 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and has prayed that the judgment passed by the Additional Divisional commissioner dated 17-9-96 be restored and it be directed that the mutation No. 254 inter alia in favour of the petitioner on 22-12-1992 by Tehsildar Sangodh was Just and proper.

( 2 ) IT is clalmed that the petitioner being the only daughter of Shri Mangi Lal, she continued to reside with him even after marriage in Village Dhulet of Tehsil Sangod. Shri mangi Lal was the khatedar tenant of the land of khasra No. 66. Since her father suddenly died on 20-12-92, after his death she being her only legal heir, the mutation was opened in her name by Tehsildar on 22-12-92. The respondent No. 1 filed appeal against such mutation stating that father of the petitioner Mangi Lal had executed a Will in his favour on 11-12-1992 and further that he was not given opportunity of hearing by entering the name of the petitioner. The SDO by order dated 5-1-94 remanded the matter back to the Tehsildar on the premise that since there was registered Will in favour of the respondent No. 1, he should be heard and matter should be decided afresh. Being aggrieved with the order dated 5-1-94 passed by the SDO, Ramganj Mandi, the petitioner filed appeal before the Additional Divisional commissioner, Kota who by his judgment dated 17-6-96 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the SDO, Ramganj mandi. The respondent No. 1 thereupon filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue asserting therein that the deceased mangi Lal has executed a Will in his favour and this aspect has not been appreciated by the Additional Divisional Commissioner. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 17-8-2001 allowed the appeal and restored the order of the SDO. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition with the prayers enumerated above.

( 3 ) I have heard Shri Vijay Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner and shri B. P. Pareek, the learned counsel for the respondent.

( 4 ) SHRI Vijay Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the orders passed by the Board of Reverie and sdo, Ramganj Mandi are contrary to the material on record and the findings recorded therein are perverse. Petitioner being natural daughter and the only legal heir of the deceased Mangi Lal, there was nothing illegal in mutating the land owned by Mangi lal in her favour. She was a legal heir of class 1. No notice of hearing was required to be given to the respondent No. 1 prior to mutating the land in favour of the petitioner. It was argued that the learned Additional divisional Commissioner has rightly held that if the respondent No. 1 wanted to establish his rights, the only course open to him only is to get the probate of the so called will. The land could not be mutated in his favour of the basis of so called Will, genuineness of which was seriously disputed by the petitioner. The Board as well as SDO did not consider that the petitioner was living with her father since birth and she cannot be deprived of the property of her father. The so called Will was a forged document because respondent No. 1 did not reside in the village Dhulet and even did not have any house in the village. He in fact was living in village Kesosara for last more than 20 years. According to Sections 8 and 10 of the Hindu succession Act, 1956, petitioner is a legal heir of Class 1 of the Schedule as she is the sole and real daughter of deceased Mangi lal.

( 5 ) SHRI Vijay Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Mrs. Hem nolini Judah v. Mrs. Isolyne Sarojbashini bose and Ors. , AIR 1962 SC 1471 and on the authority of that judgment, argued that Section 213 of the Succession Act, 1925 creates a bar on the establishment of any right under Will by any executor or a legatee unless probat