IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA rd ON THE 3 OF MAY, 2023 MISC. PETITION No. 441 of 2020 BETWEEN:-

DINESH SILONIYA S/O SHRI GOPAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:

1. AGRICULTURIST VILL. BAGER THE. ASHTA DIST. SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

RAJESH SILORIYA S/O GOPAL SINGH, AGED

2. ABOUT 47 YEARS, VILLAGE BAGER TEHSIL ASHTA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI AVINASH ZARGAR - ADVOCATE )

AND SMT. SORAM BAI W/O SHRI RAM PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BELONGS TO SCHEDULED TRIBE VILL. RAM

1.

NAGAR TEH. ICHCHAWAR DIST. SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

SMT.SUGAN (WRONGLY TYPED AS SUMAN) BAI W/O LAKHANLAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 2. NIPANIYA SIKH TEHSIL ICHCHAWAR DISTT.SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

STATE OF MP THROUGH COLLECTOR

3.

DISTT.SEHORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (MS. PAPIYA GHOSH -PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.3/STATE)

(SHRI SANJAY ROY -ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR ORDER This Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal, Division Bhopal in Case No.1067/Appeal/2017-18.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners had moved an application for mutation of their names on the basis of a Will executed by Shree Nana. The application was rejected by the Tehsildar. The order of the Tehsildar has been affirmed by the S.D.O as well as the Additional Commissioner. However, the S.D.O has also gone to the extent of disputing the ownership of Shree Nana also.

3. During the course of argument, it was fairly conceded by the counsel for the petitioner that in the light of judgment of 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 that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to mutate the names on the basis of Will. However, it is submitted that since in the present case the Will is not disputed and all the legal representatives of Shree Nana have agreed for mutation of the names of the petitioner on the basis of Will, therefore, the revenue authorities have jurisdiction to the entertain the said application.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh (supra) 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR 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