The Supreme Court has held that there is nothing in the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (the 1959 Code) that proscribes the acquisition of rights in land through a Will. The Court set aside a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had directed revenue authorities to ignore a registered Will for mutation purposes and instead record the names of legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra observed that if a Will is set up, the application for mutation based thereupon must be considered on its merits and cannot be rejected merely because it is based on a Will.
Background of the Case
The dispute pertains to agricultural land measuring 5.580 hectares located at Mouza Bhopali, originally recorded in the name of Roda alias Rodilal. Roda died on November 6, 2019. The Appellant, Tarachandra, claiming to be a legatee under a registered Will executed by Roda on May 1, 2017, applied for mutation under Section 110 of the 1959 Code.
The application was contested by the First Respondent, Bhawarlal, who claimed possession of a specific survey number (Survey No. 195) based on a written sale agreement executed by the deceased.
The Tehsildar, Manasa, after recording statements of witnesses, including attesting witnesses, ordered mutation in favour of the Appellant. The order clarified that the mutation was subject to the determination of rights in a pending civil suit. The First Respondent challenged this order before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) and subsequently before the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain. Both appellate authorities dismissed the appeals.
Aggrieved, the First Respondent approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court, by an order dated August 14, 2024, allowed the petition. Relying on its earlier decision in Ranjit Vs. Smt. Nandita Singh and Others, the High Court set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and directed that the names of the legal heirs of the deceased be mutated as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. If no heirs were available, the name of the State Government was to be entered.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Appellant: The Appellant argued that the High Court failed to apply the Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Bhu-Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018 (2018 Niyam), which explicitly allows mutation based on a Will. It was submitted that the decision in Ranjit was no longer good law in light of a Full Bench decision of the High Court in Anand Choudhary Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others. The Appellant contended that there was no serious challenge to the registered Will from any natural legal heir, and the First Respondent’s claim was based merely on an unregistered sale agreement and adverse possession, which could not interdict the mutation.
For the Respondent: The First Respondent argued that since the Appellant was not a natural heir and the Will was “shrouded in suspicious circumstances,” it could not be the basis for a mutation entry unless certified by a competent Civil Court. It was further submitted that the Appellant had an efficacious remedy of filing a civil suit for a declaration of rights.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court examined Sections 109 and 110 of the 1959 Code. Section 109 requires any person acquiring any interest in land to report such acquisition to the prescribed authority.
On Acquisition by Will: The Court observed, “There is nothing in Section 109 or Section 110 of the 1959 Code limiting acquisition of rights to a particular mode.” The Bench noted that the 2018 Niyam recognizes acquisition through a Will as a valid mode.
“Thus, 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,” the Court stated.
Reliance on Full Bench Decision: The Court referred to the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Anand Choudhary, which summarized that a Tehsildar cannot reject a mutation application at the threshold simply because it is based on a Will. The Full Bench had held that while the Tehsildar does not perform judicial functions in mutation cases, they can entertain applications based on a Will. If a serious dispute regarding the validity of the Will arises, the parties should approach the Civil Court.
On the Facts of the Case: The Apex Court noted that in the present case, none of the legal heirs of the deceased tenure holder had raised a dispute regarding the Will. The objection came solely from the First Respondent, whose claim was based on an unregistered agreement for sale.
“Admittedly, the same is not a registered document and there appears to be no decree of specific performance in his favour thus far,” the Court noted regarding the Respondent’s claim.
Fiscal Nature of Mutation: Reiterating established legal principles, the Court observed:
“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 purposes… 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.”
The Court also addressed its previous decision in Jitendra Singh Vs. State of MP and Others, clarifying that while parties must approach a Civil Court for title disputes, that judgment “cannot be taken as a law proscribing mutation based on a will particularly where the legal heirs of the tenure holder raise no dispute.”
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the mutation orders. The Court found no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the Tehsildar’s order, which had allowed mutation based on the registered Will while making it subject to regular civil proceedings.
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the orders of the revenue authorities. It clarified that the mutation entry “shall be subject to any adjudication by a competent Civil Court/Revenue Court.”
Case Details
Case Title: Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal & Anr.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 15077 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22439/2024)
Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra
