IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV th ON THE 5 OF MARCH, 2024 MISC. PETITION No. 3227 of 2019 BETWEEN:-

RAMHET S/O NARU ADIWASHI, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O BARI KA HAR RAGHUNATHPUR, TEHSIL BEERPUR DISTRICT SHEOPUR, (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI K. K. SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SMT. SHOHAN BAI W/O MANGILAL JATAV, R/O RAGHUNATHPUR, TEHSIL BEERPUR,DISTRICT SHOEPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS COLLECTOR DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. NAIB TEHSILDAR TEHSIL BEERPUR, DIST SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI SHIRAZ QURESHI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE)

( Y.P.S. RATHORE - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Challenge is made to the order dated 1.4.2019 passed by Member, Board of Revenue, M.P., Gwalior titled as Smt. Sohanbai Vs. Ramhet and Others whereby order of learned Collector District Shivpuri dated 2.2.2018 passed in Case No.4/Suo Motto Nigrani/2016-17 has been set aside.

Signature Not Verified Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. Admittedly, one Sundarlal was granted lease of Government land. He died leaving his son. Sundarlal executed a will in favour of respondent. On the basis of will executed by Sundarlal with the consent of his son Rajendra, Respondent-Ramhet is encroacher over the property submitting that he has been cultivating the land since the lifetime of Sundarlal. Petitioner-Ramhet made a complaint before Collector and on the basis of complaint, Collector took suo- motto cognizance and set aside the order of Tahsildar dated 7.4.2015 and land was directed to be recorded in the name of Government on the ground that no legal formality was adopted while granting Patta to Sundarlal. Order of Collector was challenged before Board of Revenue by Smt. Sohanbai and Board of Revenue allowed the revision and set aside the order of Collector dated 2.2.2018.

Main submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that Sundarlal was granted lease by Tahsildar. Sundarlal is alleged to execute a will in favour of respondent. Tahsildar has no right to examine the validity of a will. It is only Civil Court who can examine the validity of will and not the revenue Court. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that petitioner has become the owner of property on the basis of long cultivating possession. Respondents should have got their right adjudicated from civil Court. Order of Board of Revenue in this respect is perverse.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents opposed the submissions and submit that since a will in favour of respondent was not challenged before Tahsildar, thus, he has full jurisdiction to record the name of respondent in place of Sundarlal deceased. Rajendra, son of Sundarlal has given the statement as witness in favour of respondent and it is settled that will is not transfer. Thus, Signature Not Verified provision of 165(7) of M.P. Land Revenue Code does not apply in this case. Board of Revenue rightly set aside the order of Collector. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that as per full Bench judgment in the case of Ranveer Singh and another Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2010(III) MPJR (FB) 347 suo motto revision cannot be taken into cognizance after the expiry of 180 days.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the fact that will is not a transfer and petitioner is encroacher over the land in question, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in exercise of superintendence jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

In view of the above, petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Before parting, I would like to record appreciation for K.K. Sharma, Advocate who argued very diligently.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV)

JUDGE Rohit Signature Not Verified