Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate on the genuineness of a will; such matters must be resolved by a competent civil court.

ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

“7.1. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-

aside the impugned order dated 18-09-2024 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Narmadapuram, Division Narmadapuram, in Case No. 132/Appeal/2024-2025.

7.2. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to get mutate the name of petitioner in the revenue records on the basis of registered will dated 02-05-2011.

7.3. Any other writ/direction deem fit and proper and fact and circumstance of the case.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that on the basis of will executed by Mohan Lal Bhardwaj, name of petitioner was mutated in the revenue record by order dated 5.2.2021 passed by Tahsildar, Seoni Malva, District Narmadapuram in Revenue Case No. 874/A-6/2020-21. SDO, Seoni Malva, District Narmadapuram by order dated 24.7.2024 passed in Case No.9/Appeal / Year 2023-24 has allowed the appeal and set-aside the order passed by Tahsildar, Seoni Malva, District Narmadapuram and directed for mutation of names of all the legal representatives of Mohan Lal Bhardwaj. Second appeal filed by petitioner before Additional Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Narmadapuram has also been dismissed by order dated 18.09.2024 passed in Case No.132/Appeal/ Year-2024-25.

3. Challenging the orders passed by SDO, Seoni Malva, District Narmadapuram and Additional Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Narmadapuram, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that will is also one of the mode of execution of title and, therefore, Tahsildar did not commit any mistake by mutating the name of petitioner on the basis of will executed by Mohan Lal Bhardwaj.

4. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent. It is submitted that Revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the correctness and genuineness of the will. If the propounder of the will wants to take advantage of the will, then he has to seek a declaration from the competent court of civil jurisdiction and only thereafter, name can be mutated.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 6.9.2021 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 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.”

7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hariprasad Bairagi Vs. Radheshyam and Others, reported in 2022 (1) MPLJ

414 has held as under:-

“9. Appellant has rais