Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. It appears that the disputed lands originally belonged to one Chunilal Jaichand Solanki (the deceased for convenience). They stood in his name in the revenue records. It appears that respondent Nos. 1 to 6 wanted their names to be mutated in the place of the deceased on strength of a testamentary document stated to have been executed by the deceased on 12th September 1980. It appears that, in response to the notice issued under Section 135-D of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (the Code for brief), the petitioners sought inspection of the original testamentary document. Its copy is at Annexure-B to this petition. It appears that prior thereto a notice was issued by and on behalf of the petitioners on 13th April 1981 to the Talati-cum-Mantri of village Khaerlav not to effect any mutation in the name of the alleged legatees under the Will stated to have been executed by the deceased on 12th September 1980. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. It appears that the entry in the names of respondents Nos. 1 to 6 was effected in the revenue records with respect to the disputed lands. Thereupon, the petitioners carried the matter in appeal before the Deputy Collector at Valsad. It came to be registered as R.T.S. Appeal No. 48 of 1982. By his order passed on 27th April 1982 in the aforesaid appellate proceeding, the Deputy Collector of Valsad set aside the order passed on behalf of respondent No. 8 on 15th January 1982 certifying the aforesaid mutation entry with respect to the disputed lands in the revenue records. Its copy is at Annexure-D to this petition. That appears to have aggrieved respondents Nos. 1 to 3 herein. They carried the matter in revision before respondent No. 7 presumably under Section 211 of the Code. It came to be registered as R.T.S. Revision Case No. 19 of 1982. By the order passed by and on behalf of respondent No. 7 on 7th September 1982 in the aforesaid revisional proceeding, the order at Annexure-D to this petition came to be set aside and the order passed by respondent No. 8 certifying the aforesaid mutation entry on 15th January 1982 came to be restored. A copy of the order passed by respondent No. 7 on 7th September 1982 is at Annexure-E to this petition.

5. It cannot be gainsaid that, when a dispute as to the title to the properties mentioned in the revenue records arises, the parties have to go to the competent Civil Court for resolution of their such dispute. They cannot convert the mutation proceedings under Chapter 8A of the Code into a battle-field for the purpose. The revenue authorities are incompetent to decide the disputed question of title to any property mentioned in any revenue record.

6. It clearly transpires from the notice at Annexure-A to this petition that the Talati-cum-Mantri of village Khaerlav was informed that the petitioners would dispute any entry to be mutated in the revenue records pertaining to the disputed lands on the strength of the alleged Will stated to have been executed by the deceased on 12th September 1980. It transpires therefrom that its copy was sent to respondent No. 8. It would, therefore, mean that the petitioners herein clearly disputed the title to the disputed lands left behind by the deceased flowing to the legatees under the testamentary document stated to have been executed by the deceased on 12th September 1980. Any attempt to get the disputed lands mutated in the name of the legatees under the alleged Will would involve a disputed question of title. As stated hereinabove, the revenue authorities are not competent to resolve any disputed question of title to any property mentioned in any revenue record. The parties ought to have been directed to approach the competent Civil Court for resolution of their such dispute. It is unfortunate that, instead of adopting this course, respondent Nos. 8 and 7 have more or less decided the question of title flowing from the alleged testamentary document purported to have been executed by the deceased on 12th September 1980. This position becomes clear from the evidence recorded in the revenue proceedings including examination of the attesting witness of the alleged testamentary document. If respondent Nos. 1 to 6 or any of them wanted to propound the Will and claim legacy in their name with regard to the disputed lands and if mutation in their names was objected to by anyone, more particularly by the petitioners by their notice at Annexure-A to this petition, the revenue authorities ought to have directed the propounders of the Will to get the genuineness and validity of the Will to be decided by the competent Civil Court. The contrary approach of the revenue authorities as reflected in the impugned orders cannot, therefore, be sustained in law.

7. Learned Advocate Shri Marshall for the contesting respondents has then urged that it was not the case of the petitioners herein before the revenue authorities in the mutation proceedings that the contesting respondents or respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein should be driven to the Civil Court for establishment of their title to the disputed lands under the Will. Whether or not such a stand was taken by the petitioners in the revenue proceedings is not material when it is found that the revenue authorities have transgressed their limits of authority and jurisdiction. In fact, in. the notice at Annexure-A to this petition, the petitioners have clearly denied execution of any Will by the deceased much less the alleged Will on 12th September 1980. Simply because they demanded perusal of the original Will in the mutation proceedings is no ground to come to the conclusion that they had given up their contention regarding the valid execution and genuineness of the testamentary document in question.