ORDER

This misc. petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :- “7.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 01/03/2023 in Case No.0299/Appeal/2022-2023 and restore the order dated 12/08/1994 in3 M.P.No.584/2024 Revenue Case No.39/46/92-93 passed by Tahsildar.

7.2 That this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that he had moved an application for mutation on the basis of a Will. However, it is fairly conceded that in the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2021 SCC Online 802, the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to mutate the name of propounder of Will in the revenue records.

3. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already filed a suit for declaration of title on the basis of Will, which is still pending.

Accordingly, it is prayed that the mutation may be directed to be subject to the final outcome of the suit. It is further submitted that at present the land is standing in the name of original owner.

4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for petitioner.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh (supra) has held as under:

“7. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In thecase 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 title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter.

4 M.P.No.584/2024 8. 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 “fiscalpurpose”, 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) 16SCC 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.”

6.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 those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue. The observations of this Court in Balwant Singh case 5 M.P.No.584/2024 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