ORDER

This Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 05.01.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner, Rewa, Division Rewa in Appeal No. 161/Appeal/2016-17 by which the orders passed by the Courts below have been set aside and the application filed by the petitioner for mutation of his name on the basis of Will has been rejected.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents had also filed a suit for declaration of their title on the basis of Will which has been dismissed in default. Therefore, the revenue authorities did not commit any mistake by mutating the name of the petitioner on the strength of Will 3. In reply, it is submitted by Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma that the suit has been restored to its original file by order dated 04.12.2021 passed in MJC No. 731/2014 and there is an temporary injunction order against the petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Whether the revenue authorities have a jurisdiction to mutate the name of a person on the basis of a Will or not is no more res integra. The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. by order dated 6-9-2021 passed in S.L.P. (C) No. 13146 of 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 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 "œfiscal purpose"ÂÂ, 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) 8SCC 12; Rajinder Singh v. State of JandK, (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 and Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259;<br/>

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: <br/>

"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 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 contention that the courts were not correct in assuming that as a result of Mutation No. 1311 dated 19-7-1954, Durga Devi lost her title from that date and possession also was given to the persons in whose