Revenue authorities do not have jurisdiction to determine the genuineness of a will, and mutation does not confer any title on the property.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. With the consent of parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the orders dated 10.2.2020 passed by respondent no. 2 in Case No. 0119/2019-20/Appeal, whereby, the order dated 18.7.2019 passed by respondent No. 3 has been affirmed. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 19.5.2017 passed by respondent No. 4 in Case No. 54/15-16/A-6 whereby, the respondent no. 4 has passed an order for registering the mutation in the name of respondent no. 5 in place of late Badri Singh. The challenge is made on the ground that late Badri Singh has executed a will in favour of the petitioner and on the basis of the will, the petitioner has filed an application on 25.7.2016 for getting his name mutated in the revenue record before learned Tehsildar. After death of Badri Prasad who expired on 25.5.2016, respondent no. 5 filed an objection before learned Tehsildar and has denied execution of the will in question. The learned Tehsildar has got recorded the statement of witnesses of the will and has got it certified. Respondent No. 5 was afforded opportunity for recording his statement but he has denied for the same. Therefore, an order was passed on 19.5.2017 rejecting the application for mutation. The petitioner preferred an appeal before SDO which was dismissed affirming the order passed by Tehsildar. Second appeal was preferred which also met with the same fate. Now, being aggrieved by the impugned orders, present petition has been filed.

3. It is contended that the will in question was executed by late Badri Prasad in favour of petitioner and the witnesses have also deposed before concerning Tahsildar and the will was proved. Despite of the same, the application was rejected. He submits that the Tehsildar is having ample power to check genuineness of the will in question. In such circumstances, the order impend are unsustainable. He has prayed for setting aside the orders.

4. Per contra, counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the contention and has argued that the revenue courts are having no jurisdiction to check genuineness of the will. The reply to the application seeking mutation was filed. There is specific denial with respect to execution of the will by late Badri Prasad. In such circumstances, the will is suspicious. Therefore, the authorities have rightly passed the orders denying mutation on the basis of the will. This court in the case of M.P. No. 2763 of 2019 (Jahar Singh and Others Vs. Shyamlal) vide order dated 21.11.2019 and in W.P. No. 6617 of 2015 (Smt. Laxmi Devi and Others Vs. Deendayal died through LRs and Others) vide order dated 2.7.2019 and further in the case of Smt. Jaswant Kaur Vs. Smt. Amrit Kaur and Other reported in (1977) 1 SCC 369, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law with respect to the mode in which, the will is to be proved. It is argued that the person claiming benefit on the basis of the will in question is burdened with the responsibility to get probate from the civil court with respect to the will and in such circumstances, no illegality has been committed by the impugned order. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. From perusal of record, it is seen that the application for mutation has been filed by the petitioner on the basis of the will executed by late Badri Prasad. The objection was raised by the respondent with respect to the execution of the will. Thus, the Tehsildar ought not to have considered the application on the basis of the will in question and could not register the name. The controversy with respect to the fact that the revenue authorities are not having any jurisdiction to check the genuineness of the will has recently been considered by this court in the case M.P. No. 23 of 2021 (Kusum Bai and Another Vs. Ummedi Bai) on 16.1.2021 wherein, placing reliance upon the judgment passed by Supreme court as well a