The main legal point established in the judgment is that mutation on the basis of a Will is not maintainable and falls within the domain of the civil court. Revenue authorities have a duty to ensure the possession of actual claimants over the land.

JUDGMENT

1. With consent, heard finally. The present petition is preferred by petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

(i) A writ of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash order Annexure P-1 passed by respondent no.12.

(ii) A writ of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash order Annexure P-2 passed by respondent no.11.

(iii) A writ of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash order Annexure P-3 passed by respondent no. 10.

(iv) An appropriate writ or order may kindly be issued dismissing the application filed by respondent no.1 to 9 for mutation (Annexure P-4) since the same is without jurisdiction.

(v) An appropriate writ or order may kindly be issued condoning the delay in filing of the appeal filed by petitioners before respondent no.ll by allowing the application for condonation of delay (Annexure P-10).

(vi) Cost of this petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners.

(vii) Any other relief which this Honble High Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent no.1 submitted an application for mutation in respect of the properties situate at Sironj, the description of which is pleaded in the petition. Original owner was late Durgashankar who had 2.805 hectares in his name out of total 3.960 hectares. Petitioner no.1 is wife of deceased Durgashankar and petitioner nos.2 to 5 are his children.

3. Respondent no.1, on the basis of an alleged Will dtd. 5/6/1999 claiming the property to be bequeathed in his name by late Durgashankar, moved an application under Sec. 109 and 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity, "the Code") before Naib Tahsildar, Sironj, district Vidisha. As per the contents of Will, respondent no.1 and late Durgashankar were in acquaintance and deceased had some property as referred above at Sironj and he was the original resident of Jhalawad (Rajasthan). Because of the services he rendered to deceased, Will was executed in favour of respondent no.1 by deceased and therefore mutation application was preferred.

4. Revenue Inspector submitted a report on 3/12/2020 (Annexure P/6) that since deceased was a resident of Jhalawad and his legal representatives reside there, therefore appropriate steps be taken for intimation to legal heirs but ignoring the said report, Naib Tahsildar proceeded and passed impugned order dtd. 18/12/2019.

5. After sometime petitioners came to know about such development, therefore preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sironj, district Vidisha, on 22/12/2020 but the said appeal got dismissed on the point of delay and vide order dtd. 12/7/2021 an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act preferred by petitioners was dismissed. Thereafter, petitioners preferred a revision before Collector, district Vidisha, under Sec. 50 of the Code and vide order dtd. 21/12/2021 Additional Collector, Vidisha, dismissed the revision and affirmed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sironj. Therefore, the petitioners are before this court.

6. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioners that petitioner no.1 is wife of deceased Durgashankar and petitioner nos.2 to 5 are their children. Necessary Aadhar cards and other documents were attached with the petition to demonstrate their relationship with deceased. Since they were living at Jhalawad, therefore they did not know about the developments carried out at Sironj whereby respondent no.1 fabricated a Will in his favour and tried to receive the disputed property through the said false and fabricated Will. For mutation, he moved an application before the Naib Tahsildar, Sironj, without impleading the present petitioners as party-respondents. Surprisingly, Naib Tahsildar, Sironj, entertained the said application and even did not care to call the report from Jhalawad where deceased breathed his last and where petitioners reside. Revenue Inspector f