Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1528 (MP)

Vijay Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2022-12-15

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

body2022
JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. - In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 14/11/2022 passed by the Commissioner whereby the orders passed Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer have been set- aside. Earlier, Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer had allowed the application under Sections 109 and 110 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, for mutation on the basis of registered will dated 30/12/2011 in favour of the petitioner and other brother executed by the petitioner's father namely-Late Dharmjeet Soni. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is perverse since Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer have concurrently decided the execution of will. If authority found any illegality in the order then the matter should have been remanded for adjudication but the Commissioner ignoring the registered will, allowed the mutation of names of all legal representatives which is contrary to the registered will, as such, impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It is settled legal position that the validity of Will can be determined in the Civil Court having competent jurisdiction and Revenue Courts have no authority to determine the validity of the Will and so also the authority of the testator to execute a Will. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rajinder Singh And Another Vs. Financial Commissioner 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. 5. This proposition has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law that validity of the Will can be tested only before the Court of competent civil jurisdiction and not before the Revenue Court, the question of mutation on the basis of registered Will cannot be adjudicated by the revenue courts. Therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. The impugned order dated 14.11.2022, annexure P/1, passed by the Commissioner is hereby affirmed. Therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. The impugned order dated 14.11.2022, annexure P/1, passed by the Commissioner is hereby affirmed. However, the petitioner is free to approach before the competent Civil Court having jurisdiction in accordance with law. Certified copy as per rules.