JUDGMENT : Sanjay Dwivedi, J. 1. Since in the both these petitions the parties are same as also impugned order dated 27.08.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal has been assailed, therefore, they are being decided concomitantly. For the purpose of convenience, facts of M.P. No. 2462/2020 are being taken up for consideration. 2. These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed assailing the order dated 27.08.2020 (Annexure-P/7) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal, whereby the said Authority by setting aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal, has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 3. To resolve the controversy involved in the case, necessary facts adumbrated in a nutshell are that:- The petitioner, respondent No. 1 and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are sisters and brother. The property in question measuring 4.950 hectares (12.23 acres) previously recorded in the name of late Nandram, the father of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 and respondent Nos. 5 to 7. Thereafter, the land has been allocated in new khasra number i.e. khasra Nos. 54/2, 167/1, 55, 56, 44, 38/1, 38/4, 75, 169/1, 84, 37/3, 45/1, 83 and 85 of Village Pura Manbhavan, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 had the coparcenary right over the land in question as the said land according to them was the ancestral land and as per the amendment made in Section 6(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, they acquired coparcenary right over the said land and despite that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 handing in glove with each other, deceitfully preferred an application dated 17.03.2003 (Annexure-P/1) of Section 178 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 for partition of the land in question before the Tahsildar, Bhopal wherein neither the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were impleaded as a party nor any notice was issued to them. The Tahsildar, Bhopal, in turn, vide order dated 01.11.2004 (Annexure-P/2) corrected the revenue entries and recorded the names of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the revenue record. It is also stated in the petition that before correcting the revenue entries, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 had not been given any opportunity of hearing. The Tahsildar, Bhopal, in turn, vide order dated 01.11.2004 (Annexure-P/2) corrected the revenue entries and recorded the names of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the revenue record. It is also stated in the petition that before correcting the revenue entries, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 had not been given any opportunity of hearing. As per the petitioner, she had no knowledge about such correction made in the revenue record and on 26.09.2018, when she contacted the Tahsil Office, then she came to know about such correction and thereafter, by questioning the legality of the order passed by the Tahsildar on 01.11.2004, she preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal along with an application for condonation of delay. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal by setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar, Bhopal, allowed the appeal vide order dated 10.01.2020 (Annexure-P/4) and directed to record the name of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in the revenue record along with respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal on 10.01.2020 was further assailed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal which was allowed by the said Authority vide order dated 27.08.2020 (Annexure-P/7) by setting aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal holding therein that while passing the order for correction in the revenue entries, no error was committed by the Tahsildar, Bhopal. It was further held by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal that the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal had entertained the appeal after such a long period of 14 years which was apparently time barred and no sufficient explanation for condoning the delay was given in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and despite that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, whereas the reasons assigned in the same did not constitute any sufficient cause for condoning the delay and as such, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal was held illegal. While allowing the appeal preferred by respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it was also observed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal that the revenue Court has no jurisdiction to decide the question of title over a property for which, the parties should approach the civil Court and they are free to do so. While allowing the appeal preferred by respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it was also observed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal that the revenue Court has no jurisdiction to decide the question of title over a property for which, the parties should approach the civil Court and they are free to do so. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal has been assailed mainly on the ground that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in their original application dated 17.03.2003 sought partition mentioning therein that the land in question was their ancestral land and after allowing the said application, the Tahsildar, Bhopal passed an order on 01.11.2004 whereby the revenue record was directed to be corrected by inserting the names of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 with regard to partition of ancestral property sought for. He submits that the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 acquired coparcenary right in the land in question by virtue of amendment made in Section 6(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and such situation has been further clarified by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 32601/2018 [Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma & others]. He further submits that when partition was sought for by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 over the land in question, then it was mandatory for the Tahsildar, Bhopal to issue notice to the petitioner so also to respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and further it was also obligatory for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to implead the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 as party, but without doing so, the order passed by the Tahsildar, Bhopal is not liable to be sustained and was rightly set aside by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal. He further submits that the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal erred in holding that the delay was not properly considered by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal as the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act deserved to be dismissed as no sufficient explanation was given in the same for condoning such an inordinate delay of 14 years. He also submits that the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal also erred while holding that the property in question was self-acquired property of the father of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 and also of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 ignoring the fact that respondent Nos. He also submits that the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal also erred while holding that the property in question was self-acquired property of the father of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 and also of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 ignoring the fact that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in their application has very clearly mentioned that the land in question is their ancestral land. He submits that not considering the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 as coparceners in the land in question by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal, is contrary to law ignoring the fact that birth of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 prior to the year 2005 is now immaterial. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that the application dated 17.03.2003 (Annexure-P/1) claimed to be an original application in which the land in question was claimed to be an ancestral property had not been moved by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as the same did not contain the signatures of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. He further submits that the property in question came to respondent No. 1 in a partition took place in his parental property and as such, the said property has become the self acquired property of respondent No. 1 in which the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 had no share and they cannot claim their coparcenary right over the same. He also submits that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner clearly reveals that the Tahsildar before issuing the order of correction in the revenue entries, invited objections by a public notice, but no objection was filed by the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7. He also submits that the Additional Commissioner has rightly observed that the explanation regarding no knowledge about such correction in the revenue record for about 14 years could not be accepted. In support of his stand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has placed reliance upon various judgments of this Court reported in 2019 (2) MPLJ 307 [Shyam Narayan Prasad Vs. Krishna Prasad and others]; 2012 (1) MPLJ 353 [Rajesh Vs. Kesharsingh] and also placed reliance upon Para-221(4) of the Mulla Hindu Law. In support of his stand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has placed reliance upon various judgments of this Court reported in 2019 (2) MPLJ 307 [Shyam Narayan Prasad Vs. Krishna Prasad and others]; 2012 (1) MPLJ 353 [Rajesh Vs. Kesharsingh] and also placed reliance upon Para-221(4) of the Mulla Hindu Law. He submits that in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, the property acquired by respondent No. 1 in a partition became his self acquired property and as such, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have no share over the same. It is also submitted by him that the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal to some extent had determined the title over the property in question, therefore, the order passed by the said Authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law, whereas the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal has rightly held that the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal had exceeded its jurisdiction as the revenue Court has no right to determine the title over a property in dispute. 6. After hearing rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, I have no iota of doubt that the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal had exceeded its jurisdiction and determined the share of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in the property in question holding that the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have equal share in the property of respondent No. 1 as the land in question is a parental property of respondent No. 1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have denied the petitioner's claim saying that the property in question became a self acquired property of respondent No. 1 as the same acquired by him by way of partition in his parental property. When there is a dispute between the parties regarding their entitlement which deals with their title over the property in question, the Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to enter into such field as the said Authorities have no jurisdiction to determine the title. 7. When there is a dispute between the parties regarding their entitlement which deals with their title over the property in question, the Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to enter into such field as the said Authorities have no jurisdiction to determine the title. 7. In my opinion, Annexure-P/1 is an application preferred before the Tahsildar, Bhopal for mutating the name of respondent No. 1 in the revenue record by virtue of oral partition of the property which previously belonged to late Nandram, father of respondent No. 1 and thereafter, in pursuance to the said oral partition, the revenue record was corrected in which, the land came to respondent No. 1 and further got recorded in the name of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. By moving an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal by the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7, they in fact claimed their share treating themselves to be coparceners in the property in question. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal erred in holding that the property in question is an ancestral property and the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were one of the coparceners in the same and accordingly, set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar, Bhopal. The Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal has rightly observed that the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal did not have any jurisdiction to decide the right of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 over the property in which only civil Court has jurisdiction to determine the title. 8. Thus, I fully agree with the observations made by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal because it is the civil Court which can ultimately determine the nature of property, right and share of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in the same. The case law cited by learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have no application in the present facts and circumstances of the case and also I do not find appropriate to observe their applicability in the present case because it is for the proper forum to see whether the legal position as has been relied by the parties is applicable or not. 5 to 7 have no application in the present facts and circumstances of the case and also I do not find appropriate to observe their applicability in the present case because it is for the proper forum to see whether the legal position as has been relied by the parties is applicable or not. In a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court has to see the correctness of the order passed by the subordinate Court and in my opinion, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhopal was not in accordance with law and the said Authority had exceeded its jurisdiction whereas the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal has rightly observed that the issue involved in this case and the share of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 can only be determined by the civil Court. 9. In view of the above, I do not find any substance in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal to that extent has laid down the correct legal position holding that the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are free to approach the competent Court of law for getting their share in the property in question and as such, I approve the finding given by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal. 10. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed with the liberty as has been observed by the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, Bhopal that the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 7 can file a civil suit before the competent Court for getting their share from the land in question. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the petitions are dismissed.