ORDER

1. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) To call for the relevant record pertaining to the subject matter for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court..

(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order impugned dt. 15.2.24 Ann.P/1 passed by the Upper Commissioner Sagar Division, Sagar M.P. in the matter of Case No. 626/A6/2016 626/A6/2016-17 appeal filed under section 44 (2) of MPLR Code 1959 as well the order dt. 29.9.10 passed by the Tahsildar in Case No. 29/A-6/2009-10 29/A 10 with regard to the land Kh.No.50/1 area 1.173 Hec on the basis of will dt.17.11.08 upholding the order dt. 27.9.16 passed in case No. 113/Appeal/2012-13 113/Appeal/2012 13 by the SDO (Rev) Rajnagar Distt: Chhatarpur as per Ann. P/2 maintaining the staus quo over the land in question and revenue record.

(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed together cost of the petition.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that on the basis of Will purportedly executed by late Smt. Pyari Bai, the respondents ffiled an application for mutation of their names. The Tehsildar, Rajnagar, District Chhatarpur by order dated 29.9.2010 passed in case No. 29/A 29/A-6/2009-10, allowed the said application and the names of the respondents were mutated on the basis of so called Will executed by Late Smt. Pyari Bai.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was registered as Revenue Case No. 113/Appeal/2012 113/Appeal/2012-13 and the SDO, Rajnagar, District Chhatarpur by order dated 27.9.2016 allowed the appeal eal and order dated 29.9.2010 29.9.2010 passed by Tehsildar, Rajnagar was set aside and it was directed that the names of Bhagwan Das, Ramswaroop and Ramsakhi (petitioner) be recorded in the revenue records being the legal heirs of Late Smt. Pyari Bai.

4. Being aggrieved rieved by the said order, respondents preferred an appeal which has been allowed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar by order dated 15.2.2024 passed in Appeal No. 626/A-6/2016-17.

5. Challenging the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hariprasad Bairagi v. Others reported in 2021 (2) RN 217 = 2022 (1) MPLJ 414 has held Radheshyam and Others, that rules 24 and 32 of mutation rules do not authorized the revenue authorities to go into question of title and decide title by leading evidence in proceedings. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 6.9.2021 passed in SLP (civil) No.13146/2021 = 2023 (1) RN 243 (SC)has held that the mutation proceedings are only for fiscal purposes and the genuiness of the Will cannot be adjudicated by the Revenue Courts. It is further submitted that this Court in the case of Anand Kumar Jain And Jai and Others passed in M.P. Another v. Chandra Kumar Jain No.4458/2023 decided on 16th of February, 2024 has also taken the same view.

6. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by counsel for respondents that the mutation order was set aside on the ground of violation of section 165 (7-b)) of MPLR Code. It is submitted that since the Will has been executed in favour of her sons,, therefore, it cannot be said that the Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar com committed any illegality.

7. Heard learned counsel for parties.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh (supra) has held as under:-

"6. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) (1997) 7 SCC 137, this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates n