Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate validly of disputed Wills in summary mutation proceedings.

Late Shyam Sunder Sharma died bachelor without Class-I heirs on 11.05.2016.

Petitioners (nephew and brothers) obtained a mutation order from the Tehsildar via natural succession on 17.09.2021.

Respondent No. 3 appealed to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), claiming a right based on a notarized Will dated 11.03.2016.

The SDO dismissed the appeal on 13.07.2023, holding that Revenue Authorities cannot adjudicate the validity of a Will.

The Additional Commissioner, in a second appeal, set aside these orders on 24.07.2024 and remanded the case to the Tehsildar to record evidence regarding the Will.

Petitioners challenged this remand order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether a second appeal was maintainable under Section 44(3) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, when the first appellate authority had affirmed the original order.

2. Whether Revenue Authorities have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the genuineness and validity of a disputed Will in summary mutation proceedings.

Section 44(3)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which stipulates that a second appeal lies only if the first appellate authority varies or reverses the original order.

The settled legal principle that mutation entries are for fiscal purposes (revenue collection) only and do not create or extinguish title.

The doctrine that complicated questions of title and testamentary succession (validity of a Will) fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of a competent Civil Court, not a Revenue Officer.

The Court reasoned that the Additional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal because the SDO had affirmed (not reversed or varied) the Tehsildar’s order, thus failing the statutory requirement of Section 44(3)(a).

The Court found the Additional Commissioner’s direction to the Tehsildar—to record evidence on the Will—legally flawed as Revenue Authorities lack the procedural mechanism and legal authority to determine the validity of a disputed Will in summary proceedings.

The Court observed that remanding the matter would serve no legal purpose as it would force an incompetent authority to decide a controversy that strictly belongs to a Civil Court.

The High Court set aside the Additional Commissioner’s order dated 24.07.2024 and upheld the mutation in favor of the petitioners based on natural succession.

The final holding specifies that mutation entries are for fiscal purposes only and do not declare title; parties were relegated to the competent Civil Court to establish their rights regarding the alleged Will.