PEHALVAN SINGH Vs. SITARAAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dtd. 3/12/2015 passed by Board of Revenue, Gwalior, whereby, learned Board of Revenue has set aside the order dtd. 30/9/2011 passed in Appeal and has affirmed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ashoknagar, dtd. 6/8/2009. It has been argued by learned counsel for petitioner that property in dispute situated in Village, Masidpur, Tahsil, Ashoknagar, wherein Survey No. 488 area 0.470 Hactare and Survey No. 489 area 0.990 Hectare, total area 1.460 Hectare belongs to Khoob Singh S/o Ganesh Rama and after the death of Ganesh Ram, the respondent No. 1 filed an application for mutation before the Tahsildar on the basis of will dtd. 31/7/2008. The Tahsildar has rejected the application for mutation on the basis of will and entered the names of legal heirs of late Khoob Singh in the Revenue Records.

(2.) An appeal has been preferred against the order dtd. 31/7/2008 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Ashoknagar and the learned Sub Divisional Officer, vide its order dtd. 6/8/2009 has allowed the appeal and order passed by the learned Tahsildar, Ashoknagr, was set aside and has directed for mutation of the name in pursuance of the will. An appeal was preferred against the order passed by the learned SDO, Ashoknagar which was filed before the Additional Commissioner Gwalior, Division Gwalior and the same was finally heard and decided vide order dtd. 30/9/2011 and order passed by the learned SDO dtd. 6/8/2009 was found to be illegal and accordingly, the same was set aside. The appeal was allowed, against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior dtd. 30/9/2011, a revision was preferred before the Board of Revenue, the learned Board of Revenue vide order dtd. 3/12/2015 has allowed the revision whereby, the order dtd. 30/9/2011 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Gwalior, Division Gwalior was set aside and order passed by the SDO, Ashoknagar, dtd. 6/8/2009 was affirmed. Being aggrieved by the same, a writ petition has been preferred.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that the Board of Revenue are having no jurisdiction to grant stamp of approval to the will. The jurisdiction lies only with the Civil Courts. He has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Omprakash Vs. Govind reported in 1990 JLJ 224 and Rampiari Vs. Bhagwant, reported in 1990(2) MPWN 141 and has prayed for quashment of the order passed by the Board of Revenue and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/state as well as respondent No.1 have opposed the writ petition and has contended that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is just and proper does not call for any interference in the present petition. The learned Board of Revenue has rightly found the will to be genuine, therefore, he has directed for mutation of the name of the holders of the will. It is further contended that the will was got executed by the deceased Khoob Singh during his life time in favour of respondents and by virtue of the same, they have accrued the title of the property after the death of Khoob Singh. Thus, their names have rightly entered into in the Revenue Records.