The main legal point established in the judgment is that revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the correctness and genuineness of a 'Will' for the mutation of names in the revenue records.

JUDGMENT :

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 8/8/2013 passed by Board of Revenue in Revision No.1302-1/08, thereby affirming the order dated 29/9/2008 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in case No.274/2006-07/Appeal, by which the name of the respondents have been recorded in the revenue record on the basis of a "Will".

2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Shivchanranlal had one half share in the agricultural land bearing survey nos. 1031 area 0.81 hectare, 1033 area 0.15 hectare, 1040 area 0.72 hectare, 1084 area 0.76 hectare total area 2.44 hectare situated in village Saloni Bhitari, Tahsil Bhander, District Datia. The husband of the petitioner died issue-less on 17/5/2006 due to illness. The respondents filed an application for mutation of their names on the basis of a "Will" purportedly executed by Shivcharanlal. The petitioner submitted her objection and claimed that she is the sole legal heir of deceased Shivcharanlal being his legally wedded wife and after considering the claim and objection of the parties, the Tahsildar by order dated 18/6/2007 passed in case No. 43/05-06/A-6 rejected the application filed by the respondents.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Court of SDO, Bhander, District Datia, which too was dismissed by order dated 14/8/2007 passed in Appeal No. 57/06-07/Appeal.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of the SDO, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, which was registered as Appeal No. 274/2006-07/Appeal, which was allowed after relying upon the so called "Will" executed by Shivcharanlal and the names of the respondents were directed to be mutated in the revenue records. Being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was registered as Revision No. 1302-1/08. However, the said revision has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue by order dated 8/8/2013.

5. Challenging the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior as well as the Board of Revenue, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents had moved an application under Section 110 of MP Land Revenue Code (in short "the Code") on the strength of a forged "Will" of Shivcharanlal and, therefore, their names were wrongly mutated in the revenue records. It is further submitted that this Court by order dated 17/9/2019 passed in the case of Murari and another Vs. State of M.P. and others in Writ Petition No. 19089/2019 had held that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to test the correctness and genuineness of the "Will", therefore, the names of the parties cannot be mutated on the basis of a "Will" and they have a remedy to approach the Civil Court for declaration of their title. The said order passed by this Court was subject to challenge in Writ Appeal No. 1916/2019, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 14/2/2020 in the case of Murari and another Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2020 (4) MPLJ 139.

6. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents has supported the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior as well as the Board of Revenue and submitted that under Section 110 of the Code the names of those persons are required to be mutated who have acquired their right in the property and since the "Will" is also a mode of acquisition of right, therefore, the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior as well as the Board of Revenue did not commit any mistake by directing for mutation of the names of respondents in the revenue records.

7. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties.

8.