ORDER

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

"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present petition and it is further prayed that the orders Annexure P-1 to P-3 may kindly be set aside in the interest of justice."

2. Since, the controversy in hand lies in a narrow campus, therefore, it is suffice to mention here that one Bitti Bai was the owner of the land in dispute. The respondent No.1 made an application for mutation of his name on the basis of Will executed by Bitti Bai whereas petitioners also claimed their title on the basis of another Will executed by Bitti Bai in their favour. The petitioners are the grandsons of Bitti Bai. The Application filed by respondent No.1 for mutation of his name on the basis of Will was allowed by Tahsildar and appeal filed by petitioners was rejected by SDO.

3. Being aggrieved by order dated 18.7.2014 passed by SDO Bhander, District Datia in Appeal No.30/Appeal/12-2013, petitioners preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior by order dated 9.10.2019 passed in case No.67/2013-14/Appeal.

4. Challenging the orders passed by the revenue Courts, it is submitted by counsel for petitioners that since, Will on which respondent No.1 has relied upon, is a disputed document, therefore, the revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to decide the correctness and genuineness of Will and respondent No.1 should have approached the civil Court for declaration of his title on the basis of Will.

5. Counsel for petitioners has also relied upon the judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Choudhary v. State of M.P. and Others reported in 2025 (1) MPLJ 646.

6. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondents that in fact the petitioners were also claiming their title on the basis of rival Will purportedly executed by Bitti Bai, therefore, it is clear that Will executed in favour of respondent No.1 cannot be said to be a disputed one. However, it is fairly conceded by counsel for respondents that petitioners are the grandsons of Bitti Bai.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Choudhary (supra) has held as under:-

"75. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and hold that Tehsildar cannot reject the application for mutation at threshold on the ground that it is based upon will. However, in view of detailed discussion made by us above, it would be appropriate to summarize our conclusions serially as under:-

1) The Tehsildar while dealing with cases of mutation under sections 109 and 110 MPLRC between private parties, does not perform judicial or quasi-judicial functions, but only performs administrative functions and therefore, he is not authorized to take any evidence for the purpose of deciding applications for mutation.

2) The Tehsildar can entertain application for mutation on the basis of will. However, it would be obligatory upon him to enquire about the legal heirs of the deceased and notice them in view of provisions of section 110(4) MPLRC.

3) Sections 109 and 110 have to be read alongwith section 111 M.P.L.R.C. and a bare reading of section 111 of M.P.L.R.C. leads to conclusion that where-ever rights of private parties are involved, then it will only be for the civil Court to adjudicate the disputed cases. The jurisdiction of the Revenue Officers in the matters of mutation in Revenue records, is merely administrative.

4) A dispute as to validity of will, competence of testator to execute will or existence of two rival wills of testator, or a dispute as to validity of any other nontestamentary registered title document as enumerated in Form-1 of Mutation rules of 2018 would create a dispute relating to any right which is recorded in the record of rights and arising during either mutation or correct