ORDER

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 25.4.2019 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Case No. 176/2017-18/ Appeal, by which the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by SDO, Gwalior City, District Gwalior in Case No.23/2016-17/Appeal, has been set aside and the order dated 3.1.2017 passed by Naib Tahsildar, Circle Bahodapur, District Gwalior has been restored.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the respondents had filed an application under sections 109 and 110 of MP Land Revenue Code for mutation of their names on the basis of ''Will'' executed by one Sughar Singh. The said application was allowed by the Tahsildar by order dated 3.1.2017 and the names of the respondents were mutated in the revenue records.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar, the petitioners filed an appeal which was allowed by SDO, Gwalior City, Gwalior by order dated 16.10.2017 and it was held that the mutation of the names of the respondents on the basis of ''Will'' is erroneous.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of SDO, Gwalior City, Gwalior, the respondents filed an appeal which has been allowed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior by impugned order dated 25.4.2019 and has set aside the order of SDO and has restored the order passed by Tahsildar.

5. Challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, it is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioners that it is well-established principle of law that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to direct for mutation of name of any person on the basis of ''Will''. If somebody wants to claim his/her title over the land on the basis of ''Will'', then he/she has to seek declaration from the civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

6. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondents that Tahsildar as well as Additional Commissioner did not commit any mistake in directing for mutation of names of the respondents on the basis of ''Will'' executed by Sughar Singh.

7. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rajinder Singh And Another v. Financial Commissioner as decided on 21st March, 2013 in Civil Writ Petition No.3821/2011 has held that validity of ''Will'' can be decided by the civil Court which has exclusive domain over such matter and this cannot be decided by the Revenue Courts.

8. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.

9. A similar view has been taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 6.4.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.1820 of 2011 (Akshay Kumar v. Smt. Ramrati Pandey and Ors.) = 2017(1) RN 328. Thus, it is held that the Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to decide the rights of any party on the basis of ''Will'' and if somebody wants to claim his/her title over any property, then he/she has to seek declaration from the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior has committed material illegality by restoring back the order passed by Tahsildar, by which the names of the respondents were mutated on the basis of ''Will'' executed by one Sughar Singh.

10.Accordingly, order dated 25.4.2019 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Case No.176/2017-18/ Appeal is hereby set aside, and the order passed by SDO, Gwalior City, District Gwalior in Case No.23/2016-17/Appeal is hereby restored.

11.The application filed by the respondents under section 109 and 110 of MP Land Revenue Code is hereby rejected. The respondents are granted liberty that if they so desire, then they can seek declaration from the civil Court of Competent jurisdiction. With aforesaid observations, this petition is allowed.