ORDER

1. This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 2.1.2021 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal in Case No. 209/Appeal/2016-17, order dated 10.3.2017 passed by SDO, Vidisha, District Vidisha in Case No.76/Appeal/2015-16 and order dated 17.2.2016 passed by Tahsildar, Vidisha, District Vidisha in Case No.137/A-6/2014-15, by which the application filed by the petitioner for mutation of his name on the basis of ‘’Will’’ has been rejected.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of present petition in short are that Smt. Lalta Bai widow of Phool Singh Yadav was the owner of survey No.505 min area 0.044 hectare, survey No. 559, area 0.052 hectare and survey No.558, area 0.052 hectare, total area 0.148 hectare situated in Tahsil and District Vidisha.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that his mother was residing with him and she expired on 2.5.2015 and her last rites were performed by the petitioner as per Hindu rites and rituals. The mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Lalta Bai had executed a ‘’Will’’ by getting it notarized on 20.11.2011, according to which the above-mentioned property was bequeathed to the petitioner and on the basis of ‘’Will’’, the petitioner was entitled to get his name mutated in the revenue records. However, Tahsildar, Vidisha by order dated 17.2.2016 came to a conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove the genuineness of ‘’Will’’ and further, the petitioner has siblings and in spite of the direction given by Tahsildar, the petitioner did not pay the process fee as a result of which, the notices to the siblings of petitioner could not be issued and, therefore, the application was also dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. Accordingly, it was directed that names of all the legal representatives of Smt.Lalta Bai be recorded in the revenue records.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of Tahsildar, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the SDO, Vidisha which was dismissed by order dated 10.3.2017.The petitioner made further unsuccessful attempt by filing a second appeal before Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal, which too was dismissed by order dated 2.1.2021.

5. Challenging the orders passed by the Courts below, it is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that it is true that the petitioner did not pay the Process Fee for service of notices on his siblings in spite of the direction given by Tahsildar, but since the petitioner had personally issued notices to his siblings, therefore, the non-payment of Process Fee will not be fatal to the claim of the petitioner.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

7. Although the petitioner has claimed that he had issued the notices to his siblings but he has not filed any document to that effect. Therefore, the verbal submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted

8. Further, when the Tahsildar had directed to pay Process Fee for service of notices on the siblings of the petitioner, then why the Process Fee was not paid, has not been explained by the petitioner.

9. Thus, the only logical conclusion which can be drawn is that the petitioner was intending that his siblings may not come to know about the proceedings and his sole intention was to somehow get his name mutated in the revenue records in a clandestine manner.

10. Be that as it may.

11. The Tahildar by the impugned order dated 17.2.2016, has directed for mutation of names of all the legal representatives of Late Lalta Bai.

12. It is the case of the petitioner that since Smt. Lalta Bai had executed a ‘’Will’’ in his favour, therefore, he is the owner of the property in question by virtue of ‘’Will’’.

13. The moot question for consideration is that as to whether the revenue authorities have any authority to adjudicate the question of genuineness of Will’’ or not ?

14. This Court in the case of Rameshwar v. Gendalal by order dated 5.11.2019 passed in W.P. No