ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 — Sections 109, 110 — M.P. Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Bhu-Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018 — Mutation based on Will — Jurisdictional Limits of Revenue Officers. 1. Mutation Based on Will: There is no proscription in the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, against the acquisition of rights through a will. The 2018 Niyam explicitly recognizes a will as a valid mode of acquisition. Therefore, a Tehsildar cannot reject a mutation application at the threshold simply because it is based on a testamentary document. (Paras 10, 15, 18)

Tuesday, December 23, 2025

M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 — Sections 109, 110 — M.P. Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Bhu-Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018 — Mutation based on Will — Jurisdictional Limits of Revenue Officers. 1. Mutation Based on Will: There is no proscription in the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, against the acquisition of rights through a will. The 2018 Niyam explicitly recognizes a will as a valid mode of acquisition. Therefore, a Tehsildar cannot reject a mutation application at the threshold simply because it is based on a testamentary document. (Paras 10, 15, 18)

advocatemmmohan

M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 — Sections 109, 110 — M.P. Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Bhu-Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018 — Mutation based on Will — Jurisdictional Limits of Revenue Officers.

1. Mutation Based on Will: There is no proscription in the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, against the acquisition of rights through a will. The 2018 Niyam explicitly recognizes a will as a valid mode of acquisition. Therefore, a Tehsildar cannot reject a mutation application at the threshold simply because it is based on a testamentary document. (Paras 10, 15, 18)

2. Nature of Mutation Proceedings: Mutation entries are summary in nature and exist primarily for fiscal purposes (collection of land revenue). They do not confer, create, or extinguish title, which remains subject to adjudication by a competent Civil Court. (Paras 10, 19)

3. Scope of Revenue Authority’s Inquiry: While a Tehsildar performs administrative functions and cannot assume the powers of a Civil Court to decide complex questions of title or the validity of a "shrouded" will, they are competent to carry out mutation in undisputed cases or where a registered will is produced and no natural legal heirs raise a serious challenge. (Paras 18, 21)

4. Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227: The High Court, while exercising powers under Article 227, must confine itself to correcting jurisdictional errors or legal infirmities. It cannot set aside revenue orders based on a blanket legal premise that mutation cannot be based on a will, especially when such a premise contradicts the statutory rules (2018 Niyam). (Paras 16, 17, 21)

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

I. The Core Dispute

The appellant, Tarachandra, applied for mutation of land records following the death of the original tenure holder, Rodilal. Tarachandra's claim was based on a registered will dated 01.05.2017.

The Objection: Respondent No. 1 (Bhawarlal) objected, not as a legal heir, but as a person claiming possession based on an unregistered sale agreement.
Revenue Rulings: The Tehsildar, SDO, and Commissioner all ruled in favor of the appellant, ordering mutation subject to the outcome of any pending civil litigation.

II. The High Court’s Intervention

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh set aside these orders, relying on the case of Ranjit v. Smt. Nandita Singh, which suggested that revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to mutate names based on a will and should instead record legal heirs or the State.

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. Statutory Recognition of Wills

The Supreme Court highlighted that Sections 109 and 110 of the 1959 Code do not limit how rights are acquired. Crucially, the 2018 Niyam (Rules) specifically includes "Will" as a category for mutation. Thus, the High Court’s reliance on older precedents was outdated and legally incorrect.

**2. The Full Bench Precedent (Anand Choudhary)**

The Court approved the findings of the Full Bench of the MP High Court, which established a clear protocol:

Undisputed Wills: If no legal heirs object, the Tehsildar should proceed with mutation.
Disputed Wills: If there is a "serious dispute" (e.g., two rival wills or a challenge to the testator's capacity), the Tehsildar must not act as a judge but should direct parties to a Civil Court.
Third-Party Objections: In this case, the objector was a stranger to the family (not a legal heir). His claim based on an unregistered agreement cannot block a mutation based on a registered will.

3. Fiscal vs. Proprietary Rights

The judgment reinforces the long-standing principle that a Khasra entry (land record) is for the State to know who is responsible for paying land revenue. It is not a certificate of ownership. By denying mutation to a legatee under a registered will when no heirs object, the High Court essentially "defeated the interest of Revenue." (Para 19)

FINAL DECISION

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the orders of the Tehsildar and Commissioner.

The Mutation stands in favor of the appellant.
The Entry is provisional, meaning it remains subject to the final decree of the competent Civil Court regarding the validity of the will.

SUMMARY TABLE: REVENUE OFFICER'S POWERS

Situation	Action to be taken by Tehsildar	Para Reference
Registered Will (No Dispute)	Must allow mutation for fiscal purposes.	Para 18(7)
Serious Dispute by Legal Heirs	Must report to Collector; parties go to Civil Court.	Para 18(6)
Objection by Non-Heir	Does not bar mutation based on a registered document.	Para 21
Unregistered Sale Agreement	Cannot override a registered will in summary proceedings.	Para 21

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN