Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1485
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)
J U D G M E N T
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal impugns judgment and order of the High
1
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore dated 14.08.2024
2
passed in Misc. Petition No. 7284 of 2023 whereby the
Misc. Petition of the first respondent was allowed and
orders dated 27.09.2023, 17.12.2020 and 09.11.2020
3
passed by Additional Commissioner, Ujjain , Sub-
1
The High Court
2
Misc. Petition
3
Commissioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHETAN ARORA
Date: 2025.12.19
18:41:00 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 17
SLP Civil No. 22439 of 2024
4
Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manasa and Tehsildar,
Manasa, respectively, were set aside and a direction
was issued to mutate the name of legal heirs of Roda
5
alias Rodilal, as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , 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
6 7
110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 . 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.
8
Nandita Singh and Others , 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)
9
Niyam, 2018 . 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
10
Pradesh and Others 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.
11
State of MP and Others 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
12
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.
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
2025 INSC 1485
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)
J U D G M E N T
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal impugns judgment and order of the High
1
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore dated 14.08.2024
2
passed in Misc. Petition No. 7284 of 2023 whereby the
Misc. Petition of the first respondent was allowed and
orders dated 27.09.2023, 17.12.2020 and 09.11.2020
3
passed by Additional Commissioner, Ujjain , Sub-
1
The High Court
2
Misc. Petition
3
Commissioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHETAN ARORA
Date: 2025.12.19
18:41:00 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 17
SLP Civil No. 22439 of 2024
4
Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manasa and Tehsildar,
Manasa, respectively, were set aside and a direction
was issued to mutate the name of legal heirs of Roda
5
alias Rodilal, as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , 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
6 7
110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 . 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.
8
Nandita Singh and Others , 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)
9
Niyam, 2018 . 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
10
Pradesh and Others 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.
11
State of MP and Others 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
12
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.
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