RAJESH SAHU Vs. JAGANNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the orders passed by the various forums under the provisions of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (MPLRC).

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under :- The petitioner filed an application under section 109/110 of MPLRC on 27.9.2005 before the Tahsildar. In the said application, it is stated that there is a will in favour of the petitioner by Kanhaiyalal, and therefore, on the basis of said will the revenue record be corrected. The parties were noticed and in turn the respondent entered appearance before the Tahsildar in the said proceeding. By filing Annexure P/3, an application under section 45 of the Evidence Act, it is prayed by the respondent that said Kanhaiyalal never executed any will in favour of the petitioner. The will is a fake document and it does not contain thumb impression of deceased Kanhaiyalal. It is further stated in the said application that deceased Kanhaiyalal had an account in State Bank of Indore, Branch Sironj, wherein his thumb impressions are there. The copy of pass-book of said saving account was enclosed with the said application preferred under section 45 of the Evidence Act. It is prayed that in the interest of justice, a handwriting expert be summoned so that the thumb impression of the deceased mentioned in the will can be examined in juxtaposition to the thumb impression in the said bank account. This application was opposed by filing Annexure P/4 by the petitioner. The learned Tahsildar by a detailed interim order dated 27.12.2005 allowed the said application and opined that the relevant record be produced and a necessary amount be deposited so that an expert can be appointed for this purpose. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision before the Additional Collector. The said authority rejected the revision by order dated 23. 9. 2009. Then petitioner preferred another revision before the Additional Commissioner which was rejected by order dated 29.10.2011. Against these orders, petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board by order dated 20th September, 2012 rejected this revision.

(3.) THE said contention is vehemently opposed by Shri Rishabh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. He submits that there is no flaw in the order passed by the authorities below.