ORDER 1. Petitioner is challenging the order dated 21.7.2017 passed by SDO in Case No.12/2013-14/Appeal titled as Bhuri and another v. Kedar and Government of M.P. allowing the appeal and order dated 1.7.2019 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Case No.734/16-17/Appeal titled as Kedar v. Bhuri and others by which appeal filed by Kedar petitioner has been dismissed. Both the orders are under challenge in the present petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits as under: (i) Property was recorded in the name of Ninha who was the grandfather of petitioner Kedar Singh. During lifetime of Ninha he executed a Will deed dated 31.12.1989 in favour of the petitioner. (ii) Ninha died on 6.6.1990 and after the death of Ninha, mutation order on the basis of Will deed in favour of petitioner was done by Tehsildar. (iii) Respondents are the legal heirs of Babu S/o Ninha. (iv) Babu did not challenge the Will in favour of petitioner in his lifetime. Thus, he was consenting to the Will. (v) After a long period, legal heirs of Babu challenged the order of mutation in appeal before SDO on the basis of inheritance. (vi) SDO allowed the appeal, set-aside the order of Tehsildar and the name of legal heirs of Ninha is directed to be recorded in place of Ninha. (vii) Order of SDO is perverse in the eye of law and Tehsildar was right to pass the mutation order on the basis of Will deed as it was not opposed/contested by any party. (viii) Will in favour of the petitioner was executed on 31.12.1989, Ninha died on 6.6.1990 and mutation order in favour of the petitioner was passed on 7.7.1990 on the basis of Notarized Will. With the aforesaid grounds, petitioner prayed that the petition be allowed, order of SDO & Commissioner be set aside and order of Tehsildar be restored. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, supported the order of SDO and Commissioner and submitted that admittedly property was recorded in the name of Ninha. Ninha, admittedly, died in the year 1990. Respondents got their name mutated on the basis of alleged Will deed from Tehsildar on Mutation Register. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, supported the order of SDO and Commissioner and submitted that admittedly property was recorded in the name of Ninha. Ninha, admittedly, died in the year 1990. Respondents got their name mutated on the basis of alleged Will deed from Tehsildar on Mutation Register. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Tehsildar, appellants/respondents filed an appeal before SDO concerned which came to be heard and allowed. Order of SDO is perfect and liable to be maintained. He prayed for dismissal of the present petition. 5. 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? 6. The question is no more res integra. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 6.9.2021 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. 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 .” 8. 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. 9. It is made clear that the mutation in the names of all the legal representatives of deceased Ninha shall be subject to the outcome of the Civil Suit, if it is filed by the petitioner. 10. 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 Court. 11. With aforesaid observation, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.