Mutation based on a registered Will must be reconsidered without adjudicating title, which lies with civil courts.

The petitioners sought mutation of their names in the revenue records under Section 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code on the basis of a Will executed by Pawna Devi @ Panwa Devi.

The Tahsildar allowed the application on 26 June 1997 and directed mutation in favour of the petitioners.

Respondent No. 1 appealed, and the Sub-Divisional Officer set aside the Tahsildar’s order and directed deletion of the petitioners’ names and substitution of Respondent No. 1’s name.

The Commissioner, Surguja Division, allowed the petitioners’ second appeal and restored the Tahsildar’s order.

In revision, the Chhattisgarh Revenue Board set aside the Commissioner’s order, restored the SDO’s order, and directed the Tahsildar to initiate fresh mutation proceedings on the basis of the Will.

The petitioners challenged the Board’s order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Revenue Board’s order setting aside the Commissioner’s decision and restoring the SDO’s order concerning mutation was liable to be quashed?

2. Whether the Tahsildar should be directed to conduct fresh mutation proceedings after considering the registered Will and affording hearing to all interested parties?

3. Whether the revenue authorities could conclusively determine the validity of the Will or the parties’ title in mutation proceedings?

The Court applied Section 110 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, under which mutation of names in revenue records may be sought on the basis of a claimed succession or instrument such as a Will.

Mutation proceedings are fiscal and summary in nature and do not conclusively adjudicate title or the validity of disputed testamentary rights.

Questions concerning title or the final validity of the Will remain within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court.

The Court also applied the principle of natural justice by directing that all interested parties be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing and that the statutory procedure for mutation be strictly followed.

The Court noted the competing revenue orders and the petitioners’ contention that the revenue authorities had effectively questioned the registered Will and their possession.

However, rather than deciding the validity of the Will or title in writ jurisdiction, the Court considered it appropriate to remit the matter for a procedurally proper mutation inquiry.

The Tahsildar was directed to consider the registered Will in accordance with law, hear all interested parties, and follow the prescribed procedure.

The Court thereby preserved the distinction between a revenue entry and a final adjudication of title, leaving any substantive dispute regarding ownership or testamentary validity to the Civil Court.

The Court expressly declined to express any opinion on the merits or title of the parties and granted liberty to them to establish their title before a competent Civil Court if necessary.