MP HC Upholds Widow’s Challenge To Man’s Will-Based Land Mutation, Leaves Ownership Dispute For Civil Court

The disputed land was recorded in the name of Ramlal, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents Nos. 2–4. On 6 June 2014, the Tahsildar ordered mutation in favour of the petitioner on the basis of a Will and declared him a Bhumiswami.

Respondent No. 1 appealed; the SDO allowed her appeal on 25 October 2017. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the petitioner’s second appeal on 29 March 2023.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Articles 226 and 227, asserting, among other things, that respondent No. 1’s appeal was barred by limitation and that the appellate authorities had erred in their treatment of the mutation and the Will.

Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court exercises supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction; it does not reappraise the entire factual record and intervenes where a subordinate authority exceeds or fails to exercise its jurisdiction, or commits a patent error of law resulting in manifest injustice.

A disputed Will cannot, by itself, provide a basis for mutation in revenue records, and questions of title, succession, and the validity or effect of a Will are not appropriately determined in mutation proceedings.

The Court considered the petitioner’s limitation objection and challenges to the findings on mutation and the Will, but found no perversity, jurisdictional error or material illegality in the orders under challenge.

The petitioner’s grounds principally raised disputed questions of title, succession and the Will’s effect, which could not be resolved in mutation proceedings. Those matters therefore did not justify supervisory intervention under Article 227; the Court also found no basis to set aside the orders on the asserted delay ground.

It granted the petitioner liberty to bring an appropriate civil suit for declaration of his rights, title and interest, with consequential reliefs, if so advised. Any such suit is to be decided on its own merits, uninfluenced by the revenue orders or the High Court’s observations; the Court expressed no opinion on either party’s title or ownership claim. No order as to costs.