ORDER 1. This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 16.11.2020 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal in Case No.465/Appeal/2012-13 by which the mutation of names of petitioners in the revenue records, has been set aside. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of an oral Hibanama, the names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records and the respondent had also appeared and had accepted the Hibanama and, therefore, he kept quite. However, after a gap of about 12 years, the respondent filed an appeal along with an application under section 5 of Limitation Act which was rejected by SDO, Lateri, District Vidisha and accordingly, the appeal was also dismissed. 3. Being aggrieved by order of SDO, the respondent preferred an appeal which has been allowed by Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal and the orders of SDO as well as Tahsildar have been set aside. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that an Heirs and Ors. Abdul Aziz Khan application for mutation of names of the petitioners was filed before Tahsildar, Lateri, District Vidisha on 15.2.100 and accordingly, the notices were issued and the case was fixed for 3.3.1999. On 3.3.1999, the respondent appeared and verbally accepted Hiba and accordingly, case was fixed for recording evidence of petitioners. On 8.3.1999, the evidences of petitioners were recorded and case was fixed for 10.3.1999. On 10.3.1999, the petitioners also sought time to examine one more witness as well as to examine the respondent and accordingly, case was adjourned to 12.3.1999. On 12.3.1999, evidence of one Abdul Gaffar was recorded and accordingly, case was fixed for final orders. It is submitted that respondent Abdul Aziz who had given the land on Hiba, had executed an affidavit and thus, it is clear that the petitioners as well as respondent had admitted the Hiba orally before the Tahsildar, therefore, the Tahsildar did not commit any mistake in mutating the names of petitioners. It is further submitted that SDO, Lateri, District Vidisha did not commit any mistake in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation and under these circumstances, Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal should not have set aside the well-reasoned orders passed by the Tahsildar as well as the SDO. 5. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners. 6. It is further submitted that SDO, Lateri, District Vidisha did not commit any mistake in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation and under these circumstances, Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal should not have set aside the well-reasoned orders passed by the Tahsildar as well as the SDO. 5. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners. 6. The petitioners have filed the copy of the order sheets of the Court of Tahsildar, Lateri, District Vidisha. From these orders sheets, it is clear that respondent Abdul Aziz did not appear in person before the Court of Tahsildar. It is beyond understanding that when Tahsildar had decided to record the evidence of witnesses of petitioners, then why the Tahsildar did not insist for appearance and recording of evidence of respondent Abdul Aziz. Although in the order dated 3.3.1999 the Tahsildar has observed that respondent has verbally accepted the Hiba, but the said order sheet does not bear the signature of respondent. Thus, it is clear that the Tahsildar has acted in a most unfair manner. 7. The question which is necessary for determination is that whether the revenue authorities are competent to decide the genuineness of ''Hiba'' or not ? 8. This Court in the case of 2021(1) RN 25 (HC) Dharamveer Singh and Others v. Rushtum Singh and Others, by order dated 27.8.2019 passed in MP No. 3281 of 2019 has held as under :- ''The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rajinder Singh And Another v. Financial Commissioner as decided on 21st March, 2013 in Civil Writ Petition No. 3821/2011 has held that validity of ''Will'' can be decided by the civil Court which has exclusive domain over such matter and this cannot be decided by the Revenue Courts. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. A similar view has been taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 6.4.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.1820 of 2011 (Akshay Kumar v. Smt. Ramrati Pandey and Ors.). Thus, it is held that the Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to decide the rights of any party on the basis of ''Will'' and if somebody wants to claim his/her title over any property, then he/she has to seek declaration from the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Thus, it is held that the Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to decide the rights of any party on the basis of ''Will'' and if somebody wants to claim his/her title over any property, then he/she has to seek declaration from the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior has committed material illegality by restoring back the order passed by Tahsildar, by which the names of the respondents were mutated on the basis of ''Will'' executed by one Sughar Singh.'' Accordingly, order dated 25.4.2019 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Case No.176/2017-18/ Appeal is hereby set aside, and the order passed by SDO, Gwalior City, District Gwalior in Case No. 23/2016-17/Appeal is hereby restored. The application filed by the respondents under section 109 and 110 of MP Land Revenue Code is hereby rejected. The respondents are granted liberty that if they so desire, then they can seek declaration from the civil Court of Competent jurisdiction. With aforesaid observations, this petition is allowed. '' A similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Kalyan Singh v. Gangotri Bai and Another, by order dated 21.8.2019 passed in MP No. 3460 of 2019. Thus, it is well-established principle of law that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the genuineness of the ''Will'' and it is only for the civil Court to decide that whether the ''Will'' was executed or not ? 9. Thus, it is clear that the Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to decide the rights of any party on the basis of ''Will'' and if somebody wants to claim his/her title over any property, then he/she has to seek declaration from the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 10. Similarly, the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the question of Hiba also. When the respondent No.1 is alive, then why he would gift his property to the petitioners? Thus, viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tahsildar adopted the procedure which is unknown to law and without ensuring the appearance of respondent, passed an order of mutation in favour of petitioners. When the respondent No.1 is alive, then why he would gift his property to the petitioners? Thus, viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tahsildar adopted the procedure which is unknown to law and without ensuring the appearance of respondent, passed an order of mutation in favour of petitioners. When the order of mutation was passed behind the back of respondent, then SDO, Lateri, District Vidisha should have condoned the delay as the contention of respondent that he was not aware of the order passed by Tahsildar, should have been accepted. 11. Since the appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed as barred by limitation, therefore, it is true that Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal should have remanded the matter back to SDO, Lateri, District Vidisha for adjudication on merits but since this Court has already found that Tahsildar had mutated the names of the petitioners in a most unfair manner and with a solitary intention to give undue advantage to the petitioners by giving complete go-by to the Principles of Natural Justice as well as the fact that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the correctness of Hiba whether written or oral, therefore, since the proceedings before the Tahsildar, Lateri, District Vidisha were without jurisdiction, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal did not commit any mistake by not remanding the matter back to SDO, Lateri, District Vidisha. Accordingly, it is held that Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal did not commit any jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order dated 16.11.2020 passed in Case No.465/Appeal/2012-13. Accordingly, the same is affirmed. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.