Revenue Authority cannot adjudicate validity of a Will or prejudge merits while considering condonation of delay.

The petitioner challenged a mutation order dated 13.08.2012 passed by the Tehsildar, which mutated agricultural land in favor of Respondent No. 3 (Shailendra Kumar) based on a registered Will executed by the deceased Madanlal.

The petitioner, claiming to be a Class-I heir, alleged that Respondent No. 3 suppressed facts regarding surviving heirs and that the Tehsildar lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the Will's validity.

After a 12-year delay, the petitioner appealed to the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), who condoned the delay on 28.11.2024.

The Collector, in revision, set aside the SDO’s order and directed the petitioner to Civil Court, effectively upholding the mutation by presuming the Will's genuineness.

1. Whether the Collector exceeded his revisional jurisdiction by adjudicating the merits of the Will while hearing a challenge against an order condoning delay.

2. Whether the SDO was justified in condoning the 12-year delay based on the petitioner’s plea of lack of notice and knowledge of the mutation proceedings.

The court applied the principles of the M.P. Land Revenue Code regarding mutation (Sections 109, 110) and appeals (Section 44).

The court relied on the doctrine of Natural Justice, which necessitates that parties whose succession rights are affected must be heard.

The principle of Revisional Limitation holds that a revisional authority cannot conclusively adjudicate the merits of a dispute (such as the validity of a Will) when the subject matter is merely the condonation of procedural delay.

The Court reasoned that the Collector committed a jurisdictional error by "prejudging the controversy" regarding the Will's validity during a revision of a delay condonation order.

The Court found that the SDO had exercised sound discretion in condoning the delay because the petitioner was never served notice of the original mutation, despite being a claimant to the estate.

The Court observed that the Collector failed to record any finding that the petitioner’s explanation for the delay was mala fide or false.

The Court noted that a Tehsildar’s mutation based on a Will—when succession is contested—without notice to legal heirs is a violation of natural justice, and the SDO's decision to hear the appeal on merits was a proper exercise of lower-court discretion.

The Court restored the SDO’s order dated 28.11.2024 condoning the delay and remanded the matter to the SDO with directions to decide the appeal against the mutation order on its merits after hearing all parties.