ORDER

The petitioner has filed present miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 14-07-2021 passed in Case No.978/2020-21/Appeal by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior by which the appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed and the order dated 19-02-2020 passed in Case No.35/Appeal/2020-21 by SDO, Seondha, District Datia has been set aside.

Precisely stated the facts of the case are that Munna Khan was the owner of land bearing survey nos. 594/2-Kha, 595/2/2, 596/2/2, 598/2/2, and 597 situated at Village Seondha, District Datia, who died on 28-05-2020 and after his death, the respondent filed an application under Section 110 of MP Land Revenue Code before the Tahsildar for mutating his name in the revenue records. The said application was allowed by Tahsildar vide order dated 08-01-

2021. Being aggrieved by the order of Tahsildar, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the SDO, Seondha, District Datia on the ground that he is the nephew of deceased Munnan Khan and his name be mutated in the revenue records on the basis of the ''Will'' executed in his favour by Munnan Khan dated 05-02-2020. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the SDO on 08-01-2021 setting aside the order of Tahsildar with a direction to mutate the name of petitioner in the revenue records. Being aggrieved by the order of SDO, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, who vide impugned order dated 14-07-2021 set aside the order of SDO and restored the order passed by Tahsildar for mutating the name of respondent in place of deceased Munnan Khan. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, the petitioner preferred this petition.

Challenging impugned order passed by Additional Commissioner, Shri Ravi Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority has committed an error in taking into consideration the documents produced before it and the finding given by the second appellate Court is without jurisdiction and contrary to law and has wrongly reversed the order of the Court below.

The contention of petitioner is opposed by the counsel for the respondent. It is submitted by Shri Mishra that the revenue authorites have no jurisdiction to mutate the name of petitioner on the strength of ''Will'' and, therefore, his name cannot be mutated on the basis of Will and he has a remedy to approach the Civil Court for declaration of his title. In support of contention, he has relied on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hariprasad Bairagi vs. Radheshyam and Others 2022(1) MPLJ 414.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

It is settled principle of law that the revenue authorities have no jurisdcition to mutate the name of beneficiary in the revenue records on the strength of ''Will'' and if he wants to claim the benefit of same, then he/she has to get his /her title declared from the competent Court of civil jurisdiction and it is beyond the jurisdiction of revenue courts to decide the correctness and genuiness of ''Will''. Therefore, it is open for the petitioner to get his right or title declared on the basis of ''Will'' from the competent Court of civil jurisdiction and such decision will have no prevail over the decision of the revenue authorities.

In view of above, this petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE MKB