1. This petition is directed against the orders passed by the various forums under the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code,1959 (MPLRC).

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under :-

The petitioner filed an application under section 109/110 of MPLRC on 27.9.2005 before the Tahsildar. In the said application, it is stated that there is a will in favour of the petitioner by Kanhaiyalal, and therefore, on the basis of said will the revenue record be corrected. The parties were noticed and in turn the respondent entered appearance before the Tahsildar in the said proceeding. By filing Annexure P/3, an application under section 45 of the Evidence Act, it is prayed by the respondent that said Kanhaiyalal never executed any will in favour of the petitioner. The will is a fake document and it does not contain thumb impression of deceased Kanhaiyalal. It is further stated in the said application that deceased Kanhaiyalal had an account in State Bank of Indore, Branch Sironj, wherein his thumb impressions are there. The copy of pass-book of said saving account was enclosed with the said application preferred under section 45 of the Evidence Act. It is prayed that in the interest of justice, a handwriting expert be summoned so that the thumb impression of the deceased mentioned in the will can be examined in juxtaposition to the thumb impression in the said bank account. This application was opposed by filing Annexure P/4 by the petitioner. The learned Tahsildar by a detailed interim order dated 27.12.2005 allowed the said application and opined that the relevant record be produced and a necessary amount be deposited so that an expert can be appointed for this purpose. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision before the Additional Collector. The said authority rejected the revision by order dated 23.9.2009. Then petitioner preferred another revision before the Additional Commissioner which was rejected by order dated 29.10.2011. Against these orders, petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board by order dated 20th September, 2012 rejected this revision.

3. Shri C.R.Roman, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the revenue authorities have no authority, jurisdiction and competence to examine the correctness of the will. Only probate Court is competent to examine this aspect. No other argument is advanced by Shri Roman.

4. The said contention is vehemently opposed by Shri Rishabh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. He submits that there is no flaw in the order passed by the authorities below.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The petitioner has unsuccessfully challenged the order of Tahsildar before the various forums. All the authorities have passed detailed and reasoned order. The pivotal question is whether Tahsildar is competent to pass an order which has impact of enquiring about a document filed by the claimant. In other words, whether the Tahsildar has power to examine the genuineness and correctness of a document (will in this case) is the pivotal question. The singular contention of Shri Roman is that it can be done only by a probate Court. It is apt to quote section 110 (4) of MPLRC which reads as under:-

“110. Mutation of acquisition of right in Field Book and other relevant land records.-

(1) to (3) ..........

(4) The Tahsildar shall after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the persons interested and after making such further enquiry, as he may deem necessary, make necessary entry in the Field Book and other relevant land records.”

A bare perusal of this provision shows that the Tahsildar is equipped with the power to make certain enquiry as he deems necessary for the purpose of making entry in the Field Book. In my opinion, the argument of petitioner has no force. If the said contention is accepted, it will lead to absurdity and it will defeat the very purpose of providing power t