HARIPRASAD BAIRAGI Vs. RADHESHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has filed this appeal under Sec. 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by order dtd. 22/3/2021 passed in M.P.No. 4621/2019 passed by learned Writ Court; whereby, the petition filed by the appellant as petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case are that initially appellant filed an application for mutation of his name before Naib Tahsildar, Tahsil Sheopur on the strength of a "Will" allegedly executed by his father. Naib Tahsildar vide order dtd. 23/01/2016 rejected the said application for mutation. Taking exception to the said order, appellant preferred an appeal before the SDO, Sheopur, who in turn, vide order dtd. 6/11/2017 allowed the appeal and directed to mutate the name of appellant in the revenue records on the basis of said Will.

(3.) Order of SDO was challenged by respondents No. 1 and 2 before the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, who in turn allowed the appeal vide order dtd. 27/8/2019 and set aside the order of SDO. This order was put to challenge by the appellant before the learned writ Court mainly under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that Additional Commissioner committed material illegality while holding that the land in dispute is an ancestral land and the testator had no right to execute the Will.