Pravendra Raghuvanshi vs Hariram
2021 Latest Caselaw 8190 MP

                             1
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       MP-3686-2021
          Pravendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Hariram and ors.

Gwalior, Dated : 03-12-2021

      Shri Prashant Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri R.K. Upadhyay, Counsel for the respondents.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has

been filed seeking following relief:-

"i- The order impugned annexure P/1 and P/2 may kindly be quashed.

ii- The application filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed.

Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted."

During the course of arguments, it was fairly conceded by the

counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed an application

for mutation of his name on the basis of a 'Will' purportedly executed

by Munshilal. The Tahsildar allowed the said application. The

respondents No. 1 to 3 filed an appeal before the SDO, Basoda

District Vidisha which was allowed and the names of the legal

representatives of Munshilal were directed to be mutated in the

revenue record and the order passed by the Tahsildar on 25.08.2020

in Case No.1594/A-6/19-20 was set aside.

Being aggrieved by the order of the SDO, Basoda, District

Vidisha, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of

Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal, which was

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP-3686-2021 Pravendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Hariram and ors.

registered as Case No.811/Appeal/2020-2021 and by the impugned

order, the said appeal has been dismissed.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that since the

original owner namely Munshilal had executed a registered 'Will' in

favour of the petitioner, therefore, the Tahsildar had rightly mutated

the name of the petitioner on the basis of 'Will'.

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents

that it is well established principle of law that the revenue authorities

have no jurisdiction to mutate the name of a beneficiary on the basis

of 'Will' and if the beneficiary wants to take advantage of the 'Will',

then he has to get his title established from the Civil Court. It is

further submitted that the respondents No. 1 to 4 have also filed a

civil suit for declaration of title and the said civil suit is still pending.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh and others by order dated 06.09.2021 passed in

SLP (C) No.13146/2021 reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 802 has

held that the mutation of name of the beneficiary on the basis of a

registered 'Will' cannot be done by the revenue authorities because

mutation is done for "fiscal purposes" only and it does not confer any

title.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP-3686-2021 Pravendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Hariram and ors.

This Court in the case of Ramkali vs. Banmali and another

reported in 2021 SCC OnLine MP 359 has held that an application

for mutation of a beneficiary on the basis of 'Will' is not maintainable

and if the beneficiary wants to take advantage of the 'Will', then

he/she approach the Civil Court for declaration of his/her title.

Thus, it is clear that the revenue authorities have no

jurisdiction to mutate the name of a person on the basis of registered

'Will'. If a beneficiary of 'Will' wants to claim his title, then he has to

approach the Civil Court for declaration of his title.

In the present case, the respondents No. 1 to 4 have already

preferred a civil suit and the legality of the 'Will' is already under

challenge.

At this stage, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner

that the SDO as well as the Additional Commissioner have given

certain findings in their order, which may come in their way in the

civil suit.

Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the

petitioner.

The apprehension expressed by the petitioner is misconceived.

Once it is held that the revenue authorities do not have any

jurisdiction to entertain an application for mutation on the basis of

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP-3686-2021 Pravendra Raghuvanshi Vs. Hariram and ors.

'Will', then any finding given by them would be without jurisdiction.

It is well established principle of law that any judgment which

has been passed by any authority having no jurisdiction, would be a

nullity. Even then, by way of abundant caution, it is directed that

while deciding the civil suit, the Trial Court shall not look into the

findings given by the revenue authorities and shall decide the civil

suit strictly on the basis of the evidence, which would come on

record.

With aforesaid observations, the order dated 08.12.2020 passed

by the Sub-Division Officer, Basoda District Vidisha and order dated

08.10.2021 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division,

Bhopal are hereby affirmed.

Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2021.12.04 15:47:28 +05'30'