ORDER

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order dated 29.11.2018 passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gwalior in Case No.440/15-16/appeal, titled as Omprakash Kushwaha and others Vs. Nattha and others, whereby the appeal has been dismissed, affirming the order dated 21.03.2016 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Lashkar, District Gwalior in Case No.23/13-14/appeal, titled as Omprakash and others Vs. Nattha and others, which was filed against the order dated 24.08.2013 passed by Naib Tahsildar, Tahsil Gwalior, District Gwalior in Case No.26/12-13/A-6, titled as Nattha and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, whereby mutation in favour of respondents herein was accepted.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that lands bearing Survey Nos.162/1, 162/2, 163, total area 0.324 hectare situated in village Veerpur, Tahsil and District Gwalior were owned by Late Lalito Bai, who died on 10/1/2007 and Late Kaushabai, who died on 14/8/2008. Respondent No.1 is the son of Late Kaushabai and respondents No.2 and 3 are the sons of Late Lalitobai and petitioners are their cousin. After the death of Late Kaushabai and Late Lalitobai, respondents filed an application before the Tahsildar for mutation of their names in place of Late Kaushabai and Late Lalitobai in respect of the aforesaid lands on the basis of succession being their legal heirs. After considering the matter, Tahsildar passed the order of mutation dated 24.08.2013 in favour of applicants/respondents herein. The appeal filed by non-

applicants/petitioners herein against the said order of Tahsildar, seeking mutation of their names over the aforesaid lands on the basis of alleged Will dated 25/10/2005, was dismissed by the SDO vide order dated 21.03.2016 in Case No.23/13-14/Appeal. There-against, order was challenged before the Commissioner, which came to be heard and decided by the Additional Commissioner, who also dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of SDO and the order of Tahsildar. Orders of Additional Commissioner, Sub-Divisional Officer and Tahsildar are impugned in this petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents at length and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners, inter alia, submits that Ram Swaroop had filed a suit which came to be dismissed and Revenue Court is bound by the decision of Civil Court and petitioners are owner of land by way of Will executed by Lalito Bai and Kaushabai.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that Tahsildar ordered mutation in the name of legal heirs of deceased and in the case of Civil Court, respondents were not party, thus, decision of Civil Court, if any, will not apply against the respondents.

6. No other point has been raised by the petitioners.

7. Evidently, petitioners are staking their right over the property in dispute on the basis of Will dated 25/10/2005 allegedly executed by Late Kaushabai and Late Lalitobai in their favour. Admittedly, petitioners are the cousins of Late Kaushabai and Late Lalitobai. It is a settled law that the revenue authorities have no power to decide the validity of a Will and it would be the subject matter of Civil Court, who has a right to decide the validity of a Will.

8. The moot question for consideration is "as to whether the revenue authorities have jurisdiction to mutate the name of a beneficiary on the basis of Will or not?"

9. The question is no more res integra.

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 06.09.2021 passed in SLP (civil) No.13146/2021 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) 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 nor exting