IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA ON THE 2 nd OF MAY, 2023 MISC. PETITION No. 265 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

RAFAT KHAN D/O LATE MOHD. AZAM KHAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE 20 KOTWALI ROAD MAHAL TABBA MIYAN BHOPAL MP.

(MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI SHIV KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE )

AND

1. KU. HUDA KHAN D/O MOHD. AKRAM KHAN, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, KARAHIA HOUSE B-109 HOUSING BOARD COLONY KOH-E-FIZA BHOPAL MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. KU. RASHA KHAN D/O MOHD. AKRAM KHAN, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, KARAHIA HOUSE B 109 HOUSING BOARD COLONY KOH E FIZA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI VIVEK BADERIYA - ADVOCATE )

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

ORDER This Miscellaneous Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed against the order dated 18.12.2020 passed by Additional Collector, Raisen in Case No.02/Revision/2020-21 and order dated 23.06.2020 passed by Naib Tahsildar in Case No.194/A-6/2019-20. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents moved an application for mutation of their names on the basis of a Will executed by Smt. Rasool Bi. An objection was raised by the petitioner but the said objection was rejected by Naib Tahsildar by holding that since the father of the petitioner had pre-deceased the testator, therefore, under the Muslim Law he has no right.

3. It is also submitted that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the rights of the parties and if the respondents want to claim that the petitioner does not have any right in the property in dispute, then they must seek a declaration from the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

4. It is further submitted that the mutation entry is only for the fiscal purposes and the mutation would not confer any title on any of the party. 5. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 06.09.2021 passed in SLP (civil) No.13146/2021. He has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of H. Lakshmaiah Reddy v. L. Venkatesh Reddy, reported in (2015) 14 SCC 784.

6. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that Naib Tahsildar did not commit any mistake by adjudicating the rights of the parties in the light of the Muslim Law.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The undisputed fact is that the respondents had filed an application for mutation of their names on the basis of Will purportedly executed by Rasool Bi. Admittedly, the petitioner has been deprived from the property. Whether the petitioner has a right under the Muslim Law or not, can be adjudicated by the Civil Court of the competent jurisdiction only. The revenue authorities cannot adjudicate the rights of the parties.

9. 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 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 on