The Supreme Court has clarified that there is no legal prohibition on mutating land records on the basis of a will and that such mutation cannot be refused merely because the claim is founded on a testamentary document. The Court reiterated that mutation entries are meant for fiscal and revenue purposes and do not confer or determine title, which remains subject to adjudication by a competent civil court.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra delivered the ruling while setting aside an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore and restoring mutation in favour of a legatee under a registered will.
The dispute arose from land measuring 5.580 hectares situated at Mouza Bhopali, originally recorded in the name of Roda alias Rodilal, who died on November 6, 2019. The appellant claimed rights over the land as a legatee under a registered will dated May 1, 2017, and applied for mutation under Section 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.
The first respondent objected to the mutation, asserting possession over one of the survey numbers on the strength of an alleged unregistered agreement for sale executed by the deceased. The Tehsildar, after issuing public notice, calling for reports, and recording statements of witnesses including attesting witnesses to the will, ordered mutation in favour of the appellant, subject to the outcome of any civil proceedings. Appeals before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Commissioner were dismissed.
The High Court, however, set aside the mutation orders by relying on its earlier decision in Ranjit v. Smt. Nandita Singh, directing that the land be mutated in favour of legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, or in the alternative, in favour of the State. This order was made subject to pending civil suits.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the High Court failed to consider the statutory framework, particularly the Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Bhu-Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018, which expressly permits mutation based on a will. It was contended that the earlier decision relied upon by the High Court was no longer good law, especially in view of the Full Bench ruling in Anand Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that mutation applications based on wills cannot be rejected at the threshold.
The appellant further submitted that the will was a registered document and was not seriously disputed by any legal heir of the deceased. The first respondent, being neither a legal heir nor armed with any decree of specific performance, could not block mutation on the basis of an unregistered agreement or a plea of adverse possession.
Rejecting the respondent’s contention that a will must first be validated by a civil court, the Supreme Court held that Sections 109 and 110 of the 1959 Code recognise acquisition of rights in land through various modes, including devolution by will. There is no statutory bar on mutation based on a will, and the 2018 Rules explicitly recognise such a mode of acquisition.
The Court observed that the Tehsildar and appellate authorities had followed due procedure and that, in proceedings under Article 227, the High Court was required to examine only jurisdictional errors or patent legal infirmities. Setting aside mutation solely on the premise that it was based on a will was found to be legally unsustainable.
Emphasising that mutation does not confer title, the Court held that where no serious challenge is raised by natural legal heirs and there is no statutory prohibition, mutation based on a will should not be denied, as it would impede revenue administration.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the mutation orders passed by the revenue authorities, while clarifying that the mutation entry shall remain subject to adjudication by a competent civil or revenue court.
Case Title:
Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal and Another, Civil Appeal No. 15077 of 2025
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22439 of 2024)
