ORDER

This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 09.02.2023 passed by Tehsildar, Tehsil 3 M.P.No.6719/2023 Semariya, District Rewa in Case No.686/A-6/2022-2023 and order dated 19.10.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa in Appeal No.423/Appeal/2023-2024.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner had moved an application for mutation of her name on the basis of a will executed by the original owner. The said application was rejected by the Naib Tehsildar, Circle, Shahpur, Tehsil Semariya, District Rewa by order dated 09.02.2023. The appeal filed by petitioner was allowed by SDO by order dated 06.10.2023 passed in Case No.65/A-6/Appeal No.2023-2024.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred an appeal, which has been allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa in Case No.315/Appeal/2023-2024 by order dated 19.10.2023.

4. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner has already filed a civil suit in this regard.

5. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents.

6. Heard the learned counsel for parties.

7. 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 extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on 4 M.P.No.6719/2023 title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter.

6.1 In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186, it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose”, i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58;

Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v.

Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191;

Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70.”

8. The Supreme Court in the case of H. Lakshmaiah Reddy v. L. Venkatesh Reddy, reported in (2015) 14 SCC 784 has held as under : “8. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, the first defendant did not relinquish or release his right in respect of the half-share in the suit property at any point of time and that is also not the case pleaded by the plaintiff. The assumption on the part of the High Court that as a result of the mutation, the first defendant divested himself of the title and possession of half-share in suit property is wrong. The mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and 5 M.P.No.6719/2023 those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. The observations of this Court in Balwant Singh case are relevant and are extracted below: (SCC p. 142, paras 21-22) “21. We have considered the rival submissions and we are of the view that Mr Sanyal is right in his conte