Mutation based on a registered Will cannot be denied merely due to pending civil proceedings.

Santokben Aabhabhai Sharma owned land bearing Survey No. 50 paiki 5, situated at Village Palasva, Junagadh.

She executed a registered Will in favour of the petitioner on 26 March 2013 and died on 29 July 2013.

The petitioner obtained probate from the competent Civil Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 62 of 2013 on 3 February 2014 and, on that basis, Entry No. 4028 was mutated in the revenue record on 2 April 2014.

The Mamlatdar subsequently cancelled the entry on 13 June 2014, principally on the ground that the probate certificate had not been produced.

The petitioner’s challenges before the Deputy Collector, Collector and Special Secretary (Appeals) were unsuccessful.

The dispute also involved pending Second Appeal No. 24 of 2002 concerning the land, but no injunction against mutation had been granted by the Civil Court.

The petitioner therefore challenged the orders dated 13 June 2014, 17 June 2016, 16 November 2016 and 4 October 2017 before the High Court.

Whether the revenue authorities could refuse or cancel mutation of a revenue entry based on a registered Will merely because civil proceedings concerning the land were pending, in the absence of any injunction.

Whether the revenue authorities, while exercising jurisdiction in RTS proceedings, could determine questions relating to title, ownership or the genuineness and validity of the Will.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to mutation of Entry No. 4028 after obtaining probate of the registered Will from the competent Civil Court.

The Court applied Sections 135 and 135-C of the Gujarat/Bombay Land Revenue Code and Rule 108 of the Bombay Land Revenue Rules, under which revenue authorities exercise limited jurisdiction in mutation and RTS proceedings and are required to give effect to documents of title without adjudicating disputed title.

Relying on Gandabhai Dalpatbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2005 (2) GLR 1370, and the principles reiterated in Narendrabhai Shantilal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, 2023 (0) AIJEL-HC 247646, the Court held that revenue authorities cannot decide title or the validity of a transaction; such questions fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

Mutation entries are fiscal in nature, confer no title or ownership, and may remain subject to the outcome of pending civil proceedings.

The Court also relied on Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1246, for the principle that mutation based on a Will cannot be denied merely because civil proceedings are pending, particularly where no serious dispute is raised by the legal heirs; probate is not necessarily a precondition for mutation.

The Court found that the petitioner had produced a registered Will and, additionally, had obtained probate from the competent Civil Court.

No heir of Santokben Sharma had challenged the Will or raised any objection to the petitioner’s claim.

The pending Second Appeal did not justify cancellation or refusal of mutation because there was no injunction prohibiting such mutation.

The revenue authorities had exceeded their limited RTS jurisdiction by effectively questioning the petitioner’s entitlement and refusing mutation on the basis of pending civil proceedings.

Since mutation serves only fiscal purposes and does not determine title, Entry No. 4028 could be recorded while expressly making it subject to the final outcome of the pending Second Appeal.

The concerned revenue authority was directed to mutate Entry No. 4028 in favour of the petitioner.

The Court clarified that the mutation would remain subject to the final outcome of Second Appeal No. 24 of 2002 pending before the High Court.

Rule was made absolute to that extent, and direct service was permitted.