Shivaji Rathore 23-Dec-2025
In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of revenue authorities’ powers, the Supreme Court has held that there is no legal bar on carrying out mutation of land records on the basis of a will, and such mutation cannot be refused merely because the claim is founded on a testamentary document. Setting aside the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Court restored the mutation in favour of a legatee under a registered will, while making it clear that such mutation would remain subject to the outcome of any civil proceedings concerning title. The verdict was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra, reaffirming the well-settled principle that mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature and do not decide ownership rights.
No Prohibition on Mutation Based on a Will:-
The Supreme Court categorically held that neither the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 nor the Madhya Pradesh Bhu Rajasva Sanhita (Bhu Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018 places any embargo on mutation of land records based on a will. Analysing Sections 109 and 110 of the 1959 Code, the Court observed that the statute does not confine acquisition of rights in land to inter vivos transactions such as sale, gift, mortgage or lease. Rights in immovable property may also devolve through a will or by inheritance/succession upon the death of the holder of title. Importantly, the 2018 Niyam expressly recognises a will as one of the modes of acquisition for the purpose of mutation. Rejecting the approach adopted by the High Court, the Bench held that an application for mutation founded on a will cannot be rejected at the threshold merely because it is testamentary in nature. If a will is set up, the application must be examined on its merits, subject of course to any dispute regarding its genuineness or validity being decided by a competent civil court.
Reliance on Full Bench Precedent:- The Court placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Anand Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which had authoritatively clarified that: A Tehsildar is competent to entertain a mutation application based on a will; However, questions relating to the validity, genuineness or enforceability of the will fall exclusively within the domain of civil courts. Echoing this position, the Supreme Court noted that “there is no bar for seeking mutation based on a will” and that revenue authorities are not expected to conduct a roving enquiry into title while deciding mutation applications. Mutation Is Fiscal, Not Title-Conferring
Reiterating a long line of precedents, the Supreme Court underscored the limited scope of mutation proceedings. Mutation entries are meant only for fiscal and revenue purposes and do not confer any right, title or interest in the property. The Court observed that where no serious dispute is raised by the natural legal heirs of the deceased tenure holder, and there is no statutory prohibition, denial of mutation based on a will would defeat the interest of revenue administration. Any person asserting better title is always at liberty to approach a competent civil court.
In this context, reference was made to Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., wherein it was held that if there is a dispute with respect to title, particularly when mutation is sought on the basis of a will, the claimant must seek adjudication before the appropriate court, as mutation does not decide ownership.
High Court’s Interference Under Article 227 Found Unwarranted
The Supreme Court was critical of the High Court’s exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It held that the High Court failed to examine whether the concurrent orders of the revenue authorities suffered from any jurisdictional error or patent legal infirmity warranting interference.
The Court emphasised that Article 227 jurisdiction cannot be invoked to re-appreciate facts or substitute the High Court’s view for that of statutory authorities, particularly when those authorities have acted within the bounds of law.
Case Description
Case Title: Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal
The dispute related to agricultural land situated at Mouza Bhopali in Madhya Pradesh, originally recorded in the name of one Roda alias Rodilal. After his death in November 2019, the appellant Tarachandra sought mutation of the land records on the basis of a registered will dated May 2017 executed in his favour.
The Tehsildar, Manasa allowed the mutation after issuing public notice, considering objections, and recording statements of witnesses, including the attesting witnesses to the will. The mutation order was expressly made subject to the outcome of a pending civil suit on title. The respondent Bhawarlal, who was not a legal heir, objected to the mutation claiming possession over part of the land on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell and adverse possession. His challenges before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Commissioner failed. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and directed mutation in favour of the legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, or in favour of the State, subject to the civil suit.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the mutation in favour of the appellant, while clarifying that the entry would remain subject to adjudication by a competent civil or revenue court if any dispute regarding title is raised and decided in accordance with law.
This ruling reinforces the settled legal position that mutation proceedings are not a forum for deciding title disputes and that testamentary succession, like any other recognised mode of acquisition, cannot be excluded from consideration by revenue authorities.
