Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nahar Singh vs Bati Bai on 13 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV
ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 2693 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. NAHAR SINGH S/O SHRI HARI JATAV, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
2. UTTAM SINGH S/O SHRI HARI JATAV, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
3. HARINAM S/O SHRI HARI JATAV, AGED ABOUT 28
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
ALL R/O VILLAGE KUMRAHUA, TEHSIL
KOLARAS, DIST SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(SHRI SUNIL KUMAR JAIN - ADVOCATE )
AND
BATI BAI D/O LATE SHRI MATUA JATAV R/O VILLAGE
MANIYAR, DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(MS. DIMPAL VYAS - ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Challenge is made to the judgment and order dated 01.07.2021 passed by
Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Case No.443/2017-18/
Appeal, Nahar Singh & Others Vs. Batibai and order dated 25.11.2017 passed
by SDO, Kolaras, District Shivpuri in Case No. 60/2014-15/Appeal Mal titled as
Batibai Vs. Naharsingh & Others.
It appears that Plots Survey Nos.1229 area 0.85 Hectare, 1043 area 2.42
Hectare, total area 3.27 Hectare situated in Village Kumhraua Tahsil Kolaras,
District Shivpuri was recorded in the name of appellant's father Matua who died
leaving behind one daughter named Batibai and one son named Hari.
Respondents moved an application before Tahsildar stating that his grand-father
Matua died on 17.02.2012. During his lifetime, he executed a registered will-
deed in his favour on 16.01.2001 and after the death of his grand-father Matua,
he was in cultivative possession of the land. Court below i.e. Tahsildar, Kolaras
mutated his name on the basis of registered will-deed. Being aggrieved with the
order of Tahsildar dated 23.02.2013, Smt. Batibai filed a Case No.60/2014-
15/Appeal Mal, Batibai Vs. Nahar Singh and Others which came to be allowed,
setting aside the order dated 23.02.2013 passed by Tahsildar and Tahsildar was
further directed that name of appellant Batibai and Hari be recorded in place of
deceased Matua. Being aggrieved with the order of SDO, petitioner filed
revision before Collector which came to be heard and decided by Additional
Collector vide order dated 01.07.2021 dismissing the appeal and maintaining the
order of SDO. Both the orders are under challenge in the present petition.
Heard learned counsel for parties at length and perused the record.
Admittedly, property was recorded in the name of one Matua who died
leaving behind him one daughter and one son. It is alleged that during lifetime of
Matua, he executed a registered will in favour of Nahar, Uttam and Hari. It is
not the Revenue Court but Civil Court that has the right to decide whether a will
was executed or not, whether it is right of wrong.
The moot question for consideration is as to whether the revenue
authorities have jurisdiction to mutate the name of a beneficiary on the basis of
Will or not?
The question is no more res integra.
The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya
Pradesh by order dated 06.09.2021 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."
Thus, it is clear that if the beneficiary wants to take advantage of a Will,
then he has to seek a declaration from the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction
and the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to mutate the name on the basis
of Will.
It is made clear that the mutation in the names of all the legal
representatives of deceased Matua shall be subject to the outcome of the Civil
Suit, if it is filed by petitioners.
It is also made clear that since the revenue authorities have no
jurisdiction to mutate the name of a beneficiary on the basis of Will, therefore
any finding given by the revenue authority with regard to the
genuineness of the Will shall not prejudice or influence the mind of the
Civil Judge.
With aforesaid observation, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR-IV)
JUDGE
Rohit
