Rampratap Singh vs Mahesh Singh Raghuvanshi And Another

G.S. Ahluwalia, J

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 04.12.2020 passed by Additional Commissioner,

Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Case No.202/2019-20/Appeal, by which the order of mutation passed by SDO in the appeal filed by the petitioner, has

been set aside.

The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that Haribabu was the owner of Survey No. 6/12/2, area 1 hectare and Survey

No. 88 area 1.181 hectares situated in village Sutai, Tahsil and District Guna.

It is the claim of the petitioner that Haribabu had executed a ''Will'' on 14.07.2009 in favour of the petitioner and on the basis of the ''Will'' executed by

Haribabu, the name of the petitioner was recorded in the revenue record by order dated 24.09.2019.

It is submitted that after about 9 years to the order passed by Tahsildar, the respondent No.1 preferred an appeal along with an application filed under

Section 5 of Limitation Act. Although the delay in filing the appeal was condoned but the appeal was dismissed on merits by SDO by order dated

02.05.2019. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior which was

registered as Case No.202/2019-20/Appeal and the said appeal has been allowed by order dated 04.12.2020 on the ground that Haribabu had expired

on 15.12.2008, whereas the petitioner had claimed that he had executed a ''Will'' on 14.07.2009. Accordingly, it was held by Additional Commissioner,

Gwalior Division, Gwalior that once Haribabu had already expired, then it is clear that the ''Will'' dated 14.07.2019 relied upon by the petitioner is a

forged document.

Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division,

Gwalior in the impugned order has mentioned that death certificate is available in the record of the Trial Court. However, it is submitted that the

petitioner never filed the death certificate and in fact, it was filed by respondent No. 1 along with his memo of appeal. However, he fairly conceded

that the petitioner did not disclose the date of death of Haribabu.

Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. Although the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior has held that the

dearth certificate showing the death of Haribabu on 15.12.2008 is available in the record of Tahsildar but it is the case of the petitioner that the said

death certificate was filed by respondent No. 1 along with his memo of appeal before the Court of SDM. However, the controversy as to whether the

death certificate is available in the record of Tahsildar or not or it was filed before the SDO or not, is not material because the petitioner has neither

filed any document to show that Haribabu was alive on 14.07.2009 either before the Court of Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior nor

before this Court. Even the petitioner has not claimed that the death certificate, in which the date of death of Haribabu has been disclosed as

15.12.2008, was not correct.

This Court in the case of Dharamveer Singh and Others vs. Rushtum Singh and Others, by order dated 27/08/2019 passed in MP No. 3281 of 2019

has held that the revenue authorities are not competent to decide the genuineness of the Will. However, when the testator had already expired prior to

the so-called ''Will'' relied upon by the petitioner, then Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior was well within its right to consider this

anomaly.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no perversity in the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior

Division, Gwalior could be pointed out by the petitioner.

Accordingly, order dated 04.12.2020 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior in Case No.202/2019-20/Appeal, is hereby

affirmed.

The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.