Every FILE Has LIFE: Madhya Pradesh High Court Says Tahsildar Can't Decide Question Of Will In Mutation Proceeding, Criticizes "Undue Haste"

‘Every FILE has a LIFE,’ the Madhya Pradesh High Court reminded a Tahsildar who proceeded to decide the question of Will in a mutation proceeding, in undue haste and without authority of law.A bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak reiterated that revenue authorities like the Tahsildar cannot put justice to travesty whilst chasing a higher number of disposals. They cannot delve into complex issues of mutation of property on the basis of will, such as questioning the authenticity or genuineness of wills.This was a case where the petitioners, who were family members of the deceased owner of a property, had preferred the petition against the orders passed by the revenue authorities from time to time.Briefly, the first respondent had filed an application for a change of status in regard to the properties located in Sironj. He filed an application under sections 109 and 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, before Naib Tahsildar, Sironj, district Vidisha on the basis of an alleged Will claiming the property to be bequeathed in his name by the deceased owner. According to the contents of the will, the first respondent and the deceased owner were acquaintances, and the deceased owned the property in Sironj. He was also the original inhabitant of Jhalawad (Rajasthan). Because of the services he rendered to the deceased, Will was executed in favour of the first respondent by the deceased and therefore mutation application was preferred.Revenue Inspector submitted a report stating that since the deceased owner resided in Jhalawad and his legal representatives did as well, proper steps should be taken for intimation to legal heirs but ignoring the Revenue Inspector's report, Naib Tahsildar went ahead and issued the impugned order.After some time, the petitioners learned of this development and filed an appeal with the Sub-Divisional Officer in Sironj. However, the appeal was dismissed due to delay, and as a result, the petitioners' application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed.Thereafter, the petitioners filed a revision with the Collector of the district of Vidisha in accordance with Section 50 of the Code. But, the Additional Collector of Vidisha dismissed the revision and upheld the decision made by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Sironj.SubmissionsThe counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Sameer Kumar Shrivastava, submitted that the petitioners were the wife and their children of the deceased, and to demonstrate their relationship with the deceased, necessary Aadhar cards and other documents were attached with the petition. Since they were living at Jhalawad, he submitted, therefore they did not know about the developments carried out at Sironj whereby the first respondent fabricated a Will in his favour and tried to receive the disputed property through the said false and fabricated Will. He further submitted that for mutation, he moved an application before the Naib Tahsildar, Sironj, without impleading the present petitioners as party-respondents, and surprisingly enough the Naib Tahsildar, Sironj, entertained the said application and did not even care to call the report from Jhalawad where deceased breathed his last and where petitioners reside. It was also submitted that the question of mutation on the basis of Will cannot be entertained by the Tahsildar or any revenue authority, as it is the domain of the Civil Court.The prayers were opposed by the counsel appearing for the State and some respondents, Mr. Siraj Qureshi who also prayed for dismissal of the petition.Counsel for the first respondent, Mr. Anil Sharma also prayed for dismissal of the petition and vehemently opposed the prayers. He supported the impugned order and was of the opinion that no illegality was caused by the Commissioner. Judgments referred to / Relied upon by the Bench and their analysis:The cases of Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal and Division Bench in Hariprasad Bairagi, clarified that legal position of the maintainability of mutation proceedings on the basis of a Will. It was noted in Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal, “Determination of the question of title is the province of the Civil Court and unless there is any express provision to the contrary, exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be assumed or implied. The scheme of the Code consistently preserves the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide questions of title and that jurisdiction is not excluded."In Hariprasad Bairagi, Murari & another as well as in the case of Smt. Nandita Singh it was discussed in detail about the scope of revenue courts in mutation proceedings on the basis of Will. In the case of Hariprasad Bairagi, the Division Bench of this Court even considered the scope of Rules 24 and 32 of Rules regarding Record of Rights (under M.P. Land Revenue Code) published in M.P. Rajpatra, and concluded that the Tahsildar on his own accord cannot record evidence and decide the title arising out of Will. It is the domain of civil courts only and...

Every FILE Has LIFE: Madhya Pradesh High Court Says Tahsildar Can't Decide Question Of Will In Mutation Proceeding, Criticizes "Undue Haste"

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Every FILE Has LIFE: Madhya Pradesh High Court Says Tahsildar Can't Decide Question Of Will In Mutation Proceeding, Criticizes "Undue Haste"

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers