Tarachandra vs Bhawarlal

2025 INSC 1485 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 15077 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22439/2024)

TARACHANDRA …APPELLANT VERSUS BHAWARLAL & ANR. …RESPONDENT (S)

JUDGMENT

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal impugns judgment and order of the High

Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore1 dated 14.08.2024

passed in Misc. Petition No. 7284 of 20232 whereby the

Misc. Petition of the first respondent was allowed and

orders dated 27.09.2023, 17.12.2020 and 09.11.2020

passed by Additional Commissioner, Ujjain3, Sub-

1 Verified Signature Not The High Court 2 by Misc. Petition Digitally signed CHETAN ARORA Date: 2025.12.19 3 18:41:00 IST Reason: Commissioner

Page 1 of 17 SLP Civil No. 22439 of 2024 Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manasa4 and Tehsildar,

Manasa, respectively, were set aside and a direction

was issued to mutate the name of legal heirs of Roda

alias Rodilal, as per Hindu Succession Act, 19565, and

if they are not available, to enter the name of the State

Government in the records.

FACTS

3. Roda alias Rodilal was recorded as tenure holder of

Survey Nos. 148, 195, 218, 225, 229/Min-1, 230/Min-

1, 231, 234 located at Mouza Bhopali measuring 5.580

hectares. He died on 06.11.2019. The appellant

claiming to be legatee under a registered will of Rodilal

dated 01.05.2017 applied for mutation under Section

4 SDO 5 1956 Act

Page 2 of 17 SLP Civil No. 22439 of 2024 1106 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 19597. On the

said application, Case No. 605/A/6/2019-2020 was

registered before Tehsildar, Manasa. To the said

application, an objection was filed by the first

respondent claiming himself to be in possession of

Survey No. 195 based on a written sale agreement

executed by Rodi alias Rodilal.

6 Section 110. Mutation of acquisition of right in land records- (1) The patwari or Nagar Sarvekshak or person authorised under Section 109 shall enter into a register prescribed for the purpose every acquisition of right reported to him under Section 109 or which comes to his notice from any other source. (2) The Patwari or Nagar Sarvekshak or person authorised, as the case may be, shall intimate to the Tahsildar, all reports regarding acquisition of right received by him under sub-section (1) in such manner and in such Form as may be prescribed, within thirty days of the receipt thereof by him. (3) On receipt of intimation under Section 109 or on receipt of intimation of such acquisition of right from any other source, the Tahsildar shall within fifteen days,-

(a) register the case in his Court;

(b) issue a notice to all persons interested and to such other persons and authorities as may be prescribed, in such Form and manner as may be prescribed; and

(c) display a notice relating to the proposed mutation on the notice board of his office, and publish it in the concerned village or sector in such manner as may be prescribed; (4) The Tahsildar shall, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the persons interested and after making such further enquiry as he may deem necessary, pass orders relating to mutation within thirty days of registration of case, in case of undisputed matter, and within five months, in case of disputed matter, and make necessary entry in the village khasra or sector khasra, as the case may be, and in other land records.

(5) The Tahsildar shall supply a certified copy of the order passed under sub-section (4) and updated land records free of cost to the parties within thirty days, in the manner prescribed and only thereafter close the case:

Provided that if the required copies are not supplied within the period specified, the Tahsildar shall record the reasons and report to the Sub-Divisional Officer. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 35, no case under this section shall be dismissed due to the absence of a party and shall be disposed of on merits. (7) All proceedings under this section shall be completed within two months in respect of undisputed case and within six months in respect of disputed case from the date of registration of the case. In case the proceedings are not disposed of within the specified period, the Tahsildar shall report the information of pending cases to the Collector in such Form and manner as may be prescribed.

7

1959 Code

Page 3 of 17 SLP Civil No. 22439 of 2024

4. Based on the will, the Tehsildar after recording the

statement of witnesses including attesting witnesses

ordered mutation. However, the mutation order was

made subject to determination of rights of the parties

in the pending civil suit.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Tehsildar, the first-

respondent preferred an appeal before the SDO. The

appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the first respondent

preferred a second appeal before the Commissioner

which too was dismissed.

6. Being aggrieved by the order(s) of the Tehsildar, SDO

and the Commissioner, the first respondent filed Misc.

Petition before the High Court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

7. The High Court by a short order, and by placing

reliance on its earlier decision in Ranjit Vs. Smt.

Nandita Singh and Others8, set aside the order of the

revenue authorities and directed that names of legal

8 2021 SCC Online MP 3410

Page 4 of 17 SLP Civil No. 22439 of 2024 heirs of Rodi alias Rodilal, as per 1956 Act, shall be

mutated, and if they are not available then the land

shall be recorded in the name of the State Government.

The High Court, however, clarified that the above

direction shall be subject to the outcome of the civil suit

pending between the parties.

8. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, this appeal

has been filed.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

perused the record.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

10. On behalf of the appellant, it was submitted:

(i) The order of the High Court reflects non

application of mind to the implementation of

Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita

(Bhu-Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran)

Niyam, 20189. The 2018 Niyam allows

9 2018 Niyam

Page 5 of 17 SLP Civil No. 22439 of 2024 mutation based on a will. Therefore, the

judgment in Ranjit (supra) that mutation

cannot be based on a will is no longer a good

law. Moreover, a full bench of the High Court

in Anand Choudhary Vs. State of Madhya

Pradesh and Others10 has held that an

application seeking mutation based on a will

cannot be rejected at the threshold.

(ii) There is no serious challenge to the

execution of the will, which is a registered

document, and the challenge led by the first

respondent is not sustainable as he is not

the legal heir of the testator. Besides, the

first-respondent’s claim is based on an

unregistered sale agreement and on adverse

possession, which cannot interdict an

application for mutation based on a will.

(iii) The rights of the first respondent can only

be determined in a regular suit whereas

10 2025 SCC OnLine MP 977

Page 6 of 17 SLP Civil No. 22439 of 2024 mutation proceedings are summary in

nature. Moreover, a mutation entry by itself

does not confer any title as it is purely for

fiscal purpose.

(iv) The High Court has failed to consider a

decision of this Court in Jitendra Singh Vs.

State of MP and Others11 wherein this

Court in a matter arising from a mutation

proceeding under the 1959 Code had

allowed mutation based on a will.

Submissions on behalf of first respondent

11. Per contra, on behalf of the first respondent, it was

submitted:

(i) The appellant is not the natural heir of the

deceased tenure holder, and the will is

shrouded in suspicious circumstances,

therefore, unless a competent Civil Court

certifies the validity of the will, the same

11 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802

Page 7 of 17 SLP Civil No. 22439 of 2024 cannot be made basis of the mutation entry.

Besides, the first respondent had led

satisfactory evidence to demonstrate his

possession over Plot No. 195. Therefore, in

such circumstances, mutation in favour of

the appellant cannot be allowed.

(ii) Otherwise also, the appellant has an

efficacious remedy of filing a civil suit for

declaration of rights based on the will and in

such circumstances, this Court should not

interfere with the order passed by the High

Court.

Discussions/Analysis

12. We have considered the submission. Before we proceed

to weigh the rival submissions an appraisal of the

provisions of the 1959 Code would be appropriate.

13. Section 109 of the 1959 Code provides that any person

lawfully acquiring any interest or right in land shall

report his acquisition of such right within six months

Page 8 of 17 SLP Civil No. 22439 of 2024 from the date of such acquisition in the form

prescribed- (a) to the Patwari or any person authorized

by the State Government in this behalf or Tahsildar, in

case of land situated in non-urban area; (b) to the

Nagar Sarvekshak or any person authorized by the

State Government in this behalf or Tahsildar, in case of

land situated in urban area. Section 110 of the 1959

Code provides for mutation in land records based on

acquisition of right.

14. There are various modes by which rights may be

acquired in an immovable property such as sale, gift,

mortgage, lease etc., which are from one living person

to another. Rights may also be acquired by devolution

of interest through a will or inheritance/ succession on

death of the title/ interest holder.

15. There is nothing in Section 109 or Section 110 of the

1959 Code limiting acquisition of rights to a particular

mode. Rather, the 2018 Niyam recognizes acquisition

through will as one of the modes of acquisition. Thus,

Page 9 of 17 SLP Civil No. 22439 of 2024 there is nothing in the 1959 Code proscribing

acquisition of rights in land through a will. As a

sequitur, if a will is set up, the application for mutation

based thereupon will have to be considered on merits

and it cannot be rejected merely because it is based on

a will.

16. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the

recorded tenure holder had expired. The appellant had

claimed acquisition of right over the land of the tenure

holder by setting up a registered will of the tenure

holder. The Tehsildar after calling for report, inviting

objections through publications and recording evidence

concluded that there was a will in favour of the

appellant duly executed by the recorded tenure holder.

Consequently, the Tehsildar allowed mutation.

Thereafter, the appeals preferred by the first

respondent were dismissed by the appellate

authorities. In these circumstances, when those orders

were impugned before the High Court in a petition

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High

Page 10 of 17 SLP Civil No. 22439 of 2024 Court ought to have considered whether there was any

jurisdictional error, or legal infirmity in the orders

impugned warranting interference under the

supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.

17. The High Court, however, without going into the merits

of the order and without examining whether there was

any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the orders

passed by the revenue authorities, set aside the order

by placing reliance on an earlier decision of the High

Court wherein mutation based on a will was considered

impermissible.

18. In our view, the High Court fell in error there. More so,

when there is nothing in the 1959 Code proscribing

acquisition of rights under a will. We have also been

taken through the decision of the full bench of the High

Court in Anand Choudhary (supra) where the law was

summarized thus:

“In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and hold that Tehsildar cannot reject the application for mutation at threshold on the ground that it is

Page 11 of 17 SLP Civil No. 22439 of 2024 based upon will. However, in view of detailed discussion made by us above, it would be appropriate to summarize our conclusions serially as under:-

1) The Tehsildar while dealing with cases of mutation under sections 109 and 110 MPLRC between private parties, does not perform judicial or quasi-

judicial functions, but only performs administrative functions and therefore, he is not authorized to take any evidence for the purpose of deciding applications for mutation.

2) The Tehsildar can entertain application for mutation on the basis of will. However, it would be obligatory upon him to enquire about the legal heirs of the deceased and notice them in view of provisions of section 110(4) MPLRC.

3) Sections 109 and 110 have to be read along with Section 111 M.P.L.R.C. and a bare reading of Section 111 of M.P.L.R.C. leads to conclusion that where-ever rights of private parties are involved, then it will only be for the Civil Court to adjudicate the disputed cases. The jurisdiction of the Revenue Officers in the matters of mutation in Revenue records, is merely administrative.

4) A dispute as to validity of will, competence of testator to execute will or existence of two rival wills of testator, or a dispute as to validity of any other non- testamentary registered title document as enumerated in Form-1 of Mutation Rules of 2018 would create a dispute relating to any right which is recorded in the record of rights

Page 12 of 17 SLP Civil No. 22439 of 2024 and arising during either mutation or correction of entry would be such a dispute.

5) In case any dispute as mentioned in para (4) above is raised between private parties, then the Tehsildar would not have any competence to decide the dispute and it would be for the parties to approach the civil court to get the dispute adjudicated, in terms of detailed discussion contained in para-74 above. Such matters will either be disposed or kept pending and reported to the Collector in terms of Section 110 (7) MPLRC by the Tehsildar, in the manner discussed in detail in this order.

6) The decision in disputed cases as contemplated under Section 110

(4) M.P.L.R.C. does not give any authority to the Tehsildar to decide such dispute and assume powers of Civil Court by going into the authenticity of will or of any non- testamentary registered title document and that outer time limit has to be read only to determine whether a dispute exists in the matter and granting opportunity to parties to approach the Civil Court. If such approach to Civil Court is not made or despite approach no injunction is granted by Civil Court, then mutation will be carried out on basis of succession by ignoring disputed testamentary document and in case of non- testamentary registered title documents, by giving effect to such document. Once a dispute in the matter of competence of testator, validity of the will (whether registered or not) or into a non-testamentary registered title document or dispute as to title is raised before Civil Court and injunction is granted, then the only course

Page 13 of 17 SLP Civil No. 22439 of 2024 open for the Tehsildar would be not to proceed further and to report the matter to the Collector under Section 110(7) of MPLRC.

7) In case no dispute is raised by any legal heirs of the testator or by any other person in the matter of competence of testator to execute the will and authenticity of the will, then it would be open for the Tehsildar to carry out the mutation in such undisputed cases. However, even in those cases subsequent Civil Suit will not be barred.

8) In case where issue of Government having interest in the land crops up in course of mutation, then the Tehsildar may decide that question in terms of Section 111 read with Section 257 (a) MPLRC by exercising jurisdiction which is wider than administrative one and may take evidence, but in those cases also, no enquiry as to validity of will or of any registered title document can take place before the Tehsildar.” The full bench decision makes it clear that there is no

bar for seeking mutation based on a will. However, in a

case of serious dispute regarding the validity/

genuineness of the will including competence of

testator’s capacity to execute it, or where there are two

rival wills set up, it would be a dispute beyond the

competence of the Tahsildar to decide, and in such a

Page 14 of 17 SLP Civil No. 22439 of 2024 case the appropriate course for the parties would be to

approach the Civil Court to get the dispute adjudicated.

19. But what is important is that mutation does not confer

any right, title or interest on a person. Mutation in the

revenue records is only for fiscal purposes12, therefore,

where there is no serious dispute raised by any natural

legal heir, if any, of the tenure holder, in absence of any

legal bar, mutation based on a will should not be denied

as it would defeat the interest of Revenue.

20. In Jitendra Singh (supra) this Court observed that if

there is any dispute with respect to the title, more

particularly when the mutation entry is sought on the

basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right

will have to approach the appropriate Civil Court/

Revenue Court and get his rights adjudicated. However,

in our view, this cannot be taken as a law proscribing

mutation based on a will particularly where the legal

heirs of the tenure holder raise no dispute.

12 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802 Page 15 of 17 SLP Civil No. 22439 of 2024

21. In the present case, none of the legal heirs of the

deceased tenure holder raised a dispute regarding the

will. The will is a registered document. The objection, if

any, is from the first respondent who claims himself to

be in occupation of a particular piece of land held by

the deceased tenure holder. Moreover, the claim of first

respondent is based on an agreement for sale, and

possession thereunder. Admittedly, the same is not a

registered document and there appears to be no decree

of specific performance in his favour thus far. In such

circumstances, if the Tehsildar and other revenue

authorities had allowed mutation on the basis of the

will by making it subject to regular civil proceedings,

we do not find any such jurisdictional error or legal

infirmity in the mutation order as may warrant

interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India.

22. In our view, therefore, the High Court erred by

interfering with the mutation order(s) passed in favour

of the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The

Page 16 of 17 SLP Civil No. 22439 of 2024 impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set

aside. The order of the revenue authorities stands

restored. The mutation entry, however, shall be subject

to any adjudication by a competent Civil Court/

Revenue Court.

23. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of

….............................................J.

(Sanjay Karol)

................................................J.

(Manoj Misra)

New Delhi;

December 19, 2025

Page 17 of 17 SLP Civil No. 22439 of 2024