ORDER

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by SDO, Ambah, District Morena passed in Case No.0005/2022-23, whereby while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by Tehsildar Ambah District Morena in case no.2015/A-6/2021-22, whereby an application for mutation of the petitioner in the revenue records on the basis of the Will was dismissed, was affirmed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, respondent No.5 and 6 are the sons of Late Shri Kailash Chandra Agarwal, respondent No.10 is the daughter, respondent no.4 is the wife, respondent No.7 and 8 are the daughtersin-law and the respondent No.9 is the grand son of Late Shri Kailash Chandra Agarwal. Late Shri Kailash Chandra Agarwal was having property situated at Ambah District Morena and had executed a Will in favour of the respondents No.4 to 9 and the petitioner and divided the share as his choice on 12.04.2021. Shri Kailash Chandra Agarwal expired on 3.5.2021 and after his death the Will came into force. The petitioner, thereafter, moved an application before Tehsildar Ambah District Morena and the same was registered as Case No.2015/A-6/2021-22 and notices were issued to the concerned parties. All the family members agreed as per the Will and despite this Tehsildar rejected the application and mutated the name on the basis of the succession vide order dated 11.3.2022. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by Tehsildar the petitioner had filed an appeal before respondent No.2, but the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 11.10.2022 and the order of Tehsildar was affirmed. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders Annexure P/1 and P/2 the present petition has been filed.

3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for respondent/State has raised a preliminary objection that since the order passed by SDO is appealable order, therefore, in the light of the availability of efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner, this petition is not maintainable.

4. To the aforesaid objection the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there is a provision of second appeal against the order passed by SDO passed in first appeal in the mutation proceedings, but since the order of Tehsildar as well as SDO are per se illegal and against the principles of natural justice, therefore, in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai, reported in 1998 (8) SCC 1 and in the matter of Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. reported in 2003 (2) SCC 107, it was contended that where there is failure of principles of natural justice or where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged, the Courts may exercise powers under the writ jurisdiction and availability of alternative remedy would not be a bar and since the very orders passed by Tehsildar as well as the SDO had been exercised in contravention of the jurisdiction vested in it, therefore, the alternative remedy is not a bar.

5. So far as the maintainability of the present petition is concerned, looking to the controversy involved in the matter and keeping in view the guidelines as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Whirlpool Corporation (supra) and Harbanslal (supra) this Court finds that the availability of alternative remedy would not be bar in maintaining the present petition. Accordingly, the said objection is hereby overruled. With regard to the case on merits is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders passed by SDO dated 11.10.2022 and passed by Tehsildar dated 11.3.2022 are without jurisdiction and, therefore, are liable to be set aside. It was further argued that the judgment cited by the Courts below in W.P. No.6695/2023 and W.P. No.1908/2019 referred to were wrongly interpreted as