ORDER

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

“The petitioner, therefore, pray that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to:-

(a) Allow the present writ petition, quash the letter dated 1.8.2024 (ANNEXURE P/1) issued by respondent No. 4 and issue appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondents to decide the application submitted by the petitioner for mutation and transfer of lease in favour of the present petitioner in accordance with law within a time bound period.

(b) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No. 2 & 3 to mutate the petitioner's name in the record and also transfer the lease in favour of the present petitioner on the basis of

WILL executed in favour of present petitioner.

(c) issue any other appropriate writ, direction or order, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and fair in the circumstances of the case.

(d) The petitioner may be awarded cost of this petition.”

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-P/1 dated 1.8.2024, whereby, his application for mutation on the basis of a Will has been rejected by the In-Charge, Lease Cell of Municipal Corporation, Indore, while referring to an opinion of the Government Advocate.

3. Shri Amol Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that since the aforesaid issue, i.e., whether mutation can be carried out on the basis of a Will, has been referred to the Larger Bench by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Nita Bhattacharya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, in W.P. No. 7492 of 2022, dated 7.10.2022, and since the aforesaid matter is still pending, the impugned order has been passed in the light of the said order only.

4. Shri Shrivastava has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Dinesh Siloniya and Another v. Smt. Soram Bai and others, passed in M.P. No.441/2020, dated 3.5.2023, wherein, this Court has also held that revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to mutate the names of the beneficiaries on the basis of a Will, whether it is disputed or undisputed.

5. On the other hand, Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a subsequent order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Gwalior in the case of Anil Kumar v. State of M.P. and others, reported as 2024 (1) M.P.L.J. 236, in which this Court has held that mutation can take place on the basis of a Will.

6. Shri Verma has also submitted that if a judgment were under reference, it would still not hold the field unless and until it is set aside. Thus, it is submitted that since the Co-ordinate Bench has already taken a view that mutation can take place on the basis of a Will, the impugned order be quashed and the matter may be remanded back to the concerned Officer of Municipal Corporation, Indore.

7. Heard. On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the documents filed on record, as also the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that none of the aforesaid decisions would be applicable in the case at hand where the order has been passed by an officer of Municipal Corporation, which is not a Court as defined under Section 3 of the EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act of 1872?). Section 3 of the Act of 1872 defines„Court? and„ documentary evidence? as under:-

“3. Interpretation-clause.––In this Act the following words and expressions are used in the following senses, unless a contrary intention appears from the context: