Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghashilal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 April, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9198
1 WP-39181-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 25th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 39181 of 2024
GHASHILAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K K Prajapati - G.A. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated
24.06.2013 passed in appeal No.52/2009-10 by SDO, Sheopur District
Sheopur whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order
dated 28.02.2008 whereby the Tehsildar had directed to mutate the names of
respondents No.2 to 4 in the revenue records was dismissed. The petitioner is
further aggrieved by the order dated 02.04.2019 passed in appeal
No.06/2013-14 by Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena
whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated
24.06.2013 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the dispute pertains to property of Late
Shri Mangilal which is situated at Village Mayapur bearing survey no. 51/6
having rakwa 10 bigha. Upon death of Late Shri Mangilal, respondents No.2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9198
2 WP-39181-2024
to 4 i.e. his LRs had preferred application before Tehsildar seeking mutation
of their names in the revenue records on the basis of succession. The
Tehsildar passed order dated 28-02-2008 whereby direction had been issued
to mutate the name of respondents No.2 to 4 in the revenue records and in
pursuance of which name of respondents No.2 to 4 had been mutated vide
Namatran Panji No.44/ 10.02.2008. Late Shri Mangilal had executed a Will
in the favour of petitioner and on the basis of said Will, petitioner had
preferred an appeal under Section 44 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue
Code, 1959 before Sub-Divisional Officer, Sheopur assailing the order dated
28.02.2008 passed by Tehsildar which was dismissed vide order dated
24.06.2013 holding the Will to be null and void. Thereafter, the petitioner
had preferred an appeal before Commissioner, Chambal Division Morena
assailing the said orders which had also received the same fate. Hence,
assailing the order dated 25.06.2019 passed by SDO and 02.04.2019 passed
by Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division Morena, the present petition
has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although
application was filed for mutation on the basis of will, which issue is covered
under judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anand
Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. and Others reported in 2025 (1) MPLJ 646, but
learned SDO went a step ahead while deciding the appeal and apart from
holding that since the land in question is Bhudan land, therefore, application
for mutation on the basis of will is not maintainable and adjudicate upon the
Will and declared the Will to be null and void which is per se illegal as the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9198
3 WP-39181-2024
domain for adjudicating a Will is sole prerogative of a Civil Court. Thus, it is
prayed that the said observation made by the SDO be set-aside and liberty be
granted to the petitioner to crystallize his rights on the basis of alleged Will
by approaching civil court.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the order
passed by the Court below is in sound and lawful exercise of his jurisdiction
and therefore, present petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
6. It is settled law that legality and validity of the Will can only be
examined by the civil court of competent jurisdiction and revenue court has
no authority to decide the same. Therefore, in view of this settled position of
law, the observations made by SDO in the order dated 24.6.2013 whereby
the Will executed in favour of petitioner has been declared as null and void is
hereby expunged and liberty is extented to the petitioner to approach civil
court for crystallization of his rights on the basis of Will.
7. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of.
8. Certified copy, as per Rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
