Tehsildar can’t decide mutation applications based on

disputed testamentary documents, particularly a will:

Rajasthan High Court “Revenue Officers, including the
Tehsildar, do not have judicial authority to resolve
disputes related to wills or non-testamentary documents.
These matters must be decided by the Civil Court.”...

Rajasthan High Court: In a reference to a larger bench due

to conflicting decisions by different benches of the High
Court regarding mutation of agricultural land based on
Wills, a 3-judges bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., Sushrut
Arvind Dharmadhikari and Vivek Jain,* JJ., held that the
Tehsildar cannot reject a mutation application at the
threshold solely because it is based on a Will. However, if
the Will is contested, mutation cannot be granted without
Civil Court adjudication. Brief Facts The instant matter
concerns with whether a Tehsildar can reject a mutation
application based on a Will without considering the
Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Bhu-Abhilekhon
Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018. The reference to a larger
bench was made due to conflicting decisions by different
benches of the High Court regarding whether revenue
authorities can grant mutation based on a Will without
requiring probate, a court declaration, or verification of its
validity Petitioners Contentions (in favor of mutation on
the basis of Will) The petitioners contended that Sections
109 and 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code,
1959 (MP Land Revenue Code) mandates that any person
acquiring a right in land must report it within six months,
allowing for mutation. It was contended that the Mutation
Rules, 2018 recognize Will as a valid document for
mutation, requiring only a self-attested copy. It was
contended that under Section 110(4) of the MP Land
Revenue Code, the Tehsildar has jurisdiction to decide
disputed mutations. The petitioners contended that the
Supreme Court in Jitendra Singh v. State of M.P., (2021)
SCC OnLine SC 802 is not binding. The Supreme Court did
not consider the Mutation Rules, 2018 as they were not in
force when that case was decided. It was contended that
the Supreme Court’s observation that a Will must be
proved in Civil Court does not apply to mutation under MP
Land Revenue Code. The petitioners cited precedents such
as Rajnesh Sahu v. Jagannath, 2013 SCC Online MP 2724,
Lokmani Jain v. Akhilesh Kumar Jain,1 etc., to support
mutation based on Will. It was referred to Punjab &
Haryana High Court’s judgment in Jagjeet Singh v.
Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, 2012 SCC Online P&H
13153, where it was held that mutation is only for fiscal
purposes and does not confer ownership, making probate
unnecessary. The petitioners also referred to Phool Singh
v. Kosa Bai,2 and Kanta Yadav v. Om Prakash Yadav,
(2020) 14 SCC 102, where the Court established that
probate is only required in certain territories, like in
Bengal, Mumbai, Madras but not in Madhya Pradesh.
Respondents’ Contention (opposing mutation without Will
being proved in Court) The respondents contended that
unlike in some states, in Madhya Pradesh, mutation
grants Bhumiswami rights, allowing sale, mortgage, lease,
etc. and this could lead to fraudulent mutations based on
fake Wills. It was contended that if Tehsildars allow
mutation based on Wills without prior proof, genuine legal
heirs will face significant legal hurdles and litigation for
years. It was contended that the Supreme Court in
Jitendra Singh (Supra) clearly held that revenue
authorities cannot order mutation based on a Will, and
title must be determined in a civil suit and it is binding. It
was contended that as per Section 63 of the Succession
Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 a Will
must be attested by two witnesses and proved in Court. It
was further contended that a Revenue Court does not
have the power to assess the validity of a Will, as is a
matter for Civil Courts. It was stated that the mutation
rules should be read as requiring only a “proved Will,”
meaning that proof before a civil court should be a
prerequisite. Court’s Analysis Mutation confers
Bhumiswami Rights The Court noted that as per Section
164 of MP Land Revenue Code, the interest of
Bhumiswami shall on his death pass by inheritance,
survivalship or bequest as the case may be, subject to his
personal laws, as per Section 178-A, a Bhumiswami can
partition the land in his own lifetime amongst his own
legal heirs, in Section 168, a Bhumiswami is given a power
to induct lessee and thus, charge lease rent, premium and
create lease hold rights of the third party in the land, in
Section 167, right is given to the Bhumiswami to exchange
the land by mutual agreement of whole or any part of its
holding, Section 165 (9) gives power to the Bhumiswami
to mortgate the land to secure a loan and under Section
250 a Bhumiswami upon getting his name mutated as a
Bhumiswami can seek possession of the land. “The
Bhumiswami can sale, gift, mortgage and in every other
manner, transfer his interest in the land. This is only
subjected to some restrictive provisions in other sub
clauses of Section 165 which restrict the rights to transfer
where the Bhumiswami is a member of aboriginal Tribe or
vulnerable section of society or where the land is held in
leasehold rights of the State Govt.” The Court recognised
that in cases of rural agricultural ancestral properties,
often the only recorded document of title is a mutation
entry, as many transactions do not require mandatory
registration under the Registration Act, 1908. The Court
stated that under M.P. Registration Rules, 1939,
specifically Rule 19(n), a copy of the latest computerized
khasra (land record) is required for registering a transfer
of agricultural land and if a document is not accompanied
by the khasra, the registration will not be executed. The
Court emphasised on the importance of Mutation Rules,
2018, particularly Form 1, which records the acquisition of
Bhumiswami rights. The Court rejected the argument that
mutation is merely for fiscal purposes and stated that the
legal consequences of mutation create actual ownership
rights. The Court emphasised that in Madhya Pradesh,
mutation grants substantial rights, including the ability to
transfer, lease, or mortgage land. The Court asserted that
if mutation were only for fiscal purposes, there would not
be frequent litigation in revenue courts regarding
mutation entries. It was stated that people seek mutation
rights to establish legal authority over land and exercise
transfer rights as mutation entries directly impact an
individual’s ability to exchange, sell, mortgage, lease, and
claim possession of the land. The Court held that
Bhumiswami status is the highest form of land ownership
in Madhya Pradesh. It was held that mutation entries are
not just for fiscal purposes but create substantive
property rights and once a person is mutated as a
Bhumiswami, they gain the legal right to transfer land,
subject to MP Land Revenue Code restrictions. “Court
discards the argument that mutation entries are purely for
fiscal purpose only because in the State of Madhya
Pradesh, as per the scheme of M.P.L.R.C., mutation entry
brings alongwith it various other rights and interests in
the land including most importantly, the right to transfer
the land.” Probate or Civil Court declaration not always
mandatory The Court noted that the Mutation Rules, 2018
and M.P. Bhu Rajasva Sanhita do not establish procedural
safeguards equivalent to civil suits. The Court noted that
mutation proceedings are summary in nature, and
Revenue Courts lack the procedural framework to evaluate
title disputes. The Court noted that Section 295 of the
Succession Act, 1925, mandates a full-fledged trial in
contentious probate cases, reinforcing that Will disputes
cannot be summarily decided by a Tehsildar. The Court
acknowledged that probate is not always essential in
certain regions like Madhya Pradesh, but emphasized that
probate remains optional. The Court noted that Section
278(b) of the Succession Act requires details of the family
or relatives in the application for letters of administration.
Further, it was noted that the procedure for deciding
probate and letter of administration cases is not identical
to that of civil suits and must follow the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure as applicable. The Court held that
in Madhya Pradesh, probate is not a compulsory
requirement under the Succession Act. Revenue
authorities cannot decide on Will validity The Court noted
that under Section 109 and 110 of MP Land Revenue Code,
Revenue Authorities can conduct mutation but are limited
by Section 111. The Court noted that Section 111 ensures
that private rights disputes are adjudicated by Civil
Courts, preventing Revenue Officers from assuming
jurisdiction beyond their administrative functions. The
Court noted that Section 31 categorised Revenue Officers
as Revenue Courts when deciding specific matters, but not
in mutation proceedings. It was noted that Section 257
details exclusive jurisdiction in specific cases, which does
not extend to mutation of disputed titles or wills. The
Court noted that Civil Courts have jurisdiction over all civil
disputes unless excluded by statute. The Court referred to
Sahebgouda v. Ogeppa, (2003) 6 SCC 151, where the Court
held that Civil Courts have jurisdiction unless explicitly
barred, ITI Ltd. v. Siemens Public Communications
Network Ltd., (2002) 5 SCC 510, where it was held that
exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction must be explicitly
stated and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. Ramesh Chander
Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 220, where it was held that bar on
Civil Court jurisdiction requires strict interpretation. The
Court asserted that the Tehsildar, while dealing with
applications for mutation under Sections 109 and 110 of
the MP Land Revenue Code, does not perform judicial or
quasi-judicial functions but merely administrative
functions. Thus, the Court held that the Tehsildar does not
have the competence to decide upon the authenticity of a
will or any other title document, whether testamentary or
non-testamentary. The Court stated that in case of any
dispute over a will or title, the matter must be referred to
the Civil Court. The Court held that if there is any dispute
over the genuineness of a Will, the Tehsildar lacks
jurisdiction to take evidence or decide its validity, it must
be decided by Civil Court. Mutation based on Will possible
only if undisputed The Court stated that if a Will is not
contested, the Tehsildar may proceed with mutation
based on the Mutation Rules, 2018. But if there is a
dispute, the propounder of the Will must first obtain a
declaration from the Civil Court. The Tehsildar can,
however, entertain applications for mutation based on a
will, but must notify the legal heirs of the deceased as per
Section 110(4) MP Land Revenue Code. If a dispute arises
regarding the authenticity of the will, the Tehsildar is not
authorised to resolve the dispute and must refer the
matter to the Civil Court. The Court further clarified that if
no suit is filed in the Civil Court within five months or if no
injunction is granted, the Revenue authorities may
proceed to decide the matter, ignoring disputed
testamentary documents and giving effect to non-
testamentary registered title documents. If a Civil Court
issues an injunction or intervenes in the dispute, the
Tehsildar must stay the mutation proceedings and report
the matter to the Collector under Section 110(7) of MP
Land Revenue Code. The Court held that in cases of
disputed mutations involving wills or title documents, Civil
Courts alone have jurisdiction. Overruling conflicting High
Court judgments The Supreme Court in Jitendra Singh v.
State of M.P., (2021) SCC OnLine SC 802, held that
previous decisions allowing mutation solely based on Wills
without proof in Civil Court were incorrect. The Supreme
Court reaffirmed the position that in cases where the will
is disputed, the party claiming the title under the will
must approach the appropriate Civil Court to establish
their right before a mutation can be made. Court’s
Decision The Court held that — Tehsildar’s function is not
judicial or quasi-judicial but administrative in nature and
does not extend to deciding title disputes. The Tehsildar is
not authorized to take evidence while deciding
applications for mutation. The Tehsildar can entertain
applications for mutation based on a will. However, it is
necessary for the Tehsildar to inquire about the legal heirs
of the deceased and issue notices to them in accordance
with Section 110(4) of the MP Land Revenue Code. In
cases of disputed wills, the propounder must approach the
Civil Court. If disputes arise during the mutation process,
they need to be adjudicated by the Civil Court, not the
Tehsildar. The Tehsildar must not proceed with mutations
based on disputed documents and should refer the matter
to the Civil Court. If the dispute regarding a will or non-
testamentary title document is raised before a Civil Court
and an injunction is granted, the Tehsildar should not
proceed with the mutation and must report the matter to
the Collector. If there is no dispute regarding the
competence of the testator or the authenticity of the will,
the Tehsildar may proceed with the mutation. However,
this does not bar the possibility of a subsequent Civil Suit.
If the mutation case involves a question regarding the
government’s interest in the land, the Tehsildar has the
authority to resolve the matter, but this does not extend
to adjudicating the validity of a will or any registered title
document. The Court directed to place the matter before
the appropriate bench for further orders as per the
conclusions drawn above. [Anand Choudhary v. State of
M.P., Writ Petition No. 3499 of 2022, Decided on 14-02-
2025] *Judgment by Justice Vivek Jain Advocates who
appeared in this case: Dr. Rashmi Pathak along with Shri
Pranay Pathak, Shri D.K. Tripathi, Shri Himanshu Mishra
along with Shri Ruchir Jain and Shri Vipin Yadav, Counsel
for the Petitioners Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior
Advocate along with Shri Utkarsh Kumar Sonkar, Shri
Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Shri R.K. Sanghi learned Senior
Advocate along with Shri Raghav Sanghi, Shri Saket Anand
Tiwari and Ms. Taneya Manucha, Counsel for the
Respondents Shri Swapnil Ganguly, Deputy Advocate
General, Counsel for the Respondent/State 1. W.P. No.
16920/2021, decided on 22.10.2021. 2. 1998 ILR MP 689
Tags : administrative functions Chief Justice Suresh Kumar
Kait civil court disputed testamentary documents
Jurisdiction Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari Justice
Vivek Jain MP Land Revenue Code Mutation mutation
applications Rajasthan High Court Revenue Authority
Tehsildar Testator Validity of WIll 2 Comments Post
navigation PREVIOUS STORY ‘Long incarceration can lead
to depression, anxiety, drug abuse’; Bombay HC grants
bail to a man in custody for over 9 years NEXT STORY
Gauhati High Court grants interim anticipatory bail to
YouTuber Ashish Chanchalani in India’s Got Latent
controversy MOST READ 24 hours 7 days All time Case
Briefs Supreme Court Appropriate Govt. obligated to
consider cases of eligible convicts for grant of premature
release where such policy exists: SC Case Briefs High
Courts MP High Court directs Sub Divisional Officer to
maintain ‘legible’ order-sheets & not treat election
proceedings ‘so casually’ Hot Off The Press News
AgustaWestland Chopper Scam| Supreme Court grants bail
to alleged middleman Christian Michel Hot Off The Press
News Gauhati High Court grants interim anticipatory bail
to YouTuber Ashish Chanchalani in India’s Got Latent
controversy Case Briefs High Courts Tehsildar can’t decide
mutation applications based on disputed testamentary
documents, particularly a will: Rajasthan High Court Case
Briefs High Courts ‘Long incarceration can lead to
depression, anxiety, drug abuse’; Bombay HC grants bail
to a man in custody for over 9 years Must Watch Section
125 CrPC: Can the second wife be entitled to maintenance
from her husband? By Ridhi Delhi HC granted bail to a man
accused of raping woman he met on dating app on pretext
of marriage By Ridhi Do convicts have a fundamental right
to procreate? Watch to know what Delhi High Court
recently held By Ridhi Book release of 8th edition of
“Criminology, Penology and Victimology” revised by
Sanjay Vashishtha By Ridhi 2 Comments Rohit Dubey Feb
19, 2025 The Case is of Madhya Pradesh High Court not
Rajasthan High Court, Correct your Headline REPLY
Harshwardhan Singh Feb 18, 2025 It’s an Madhya Pradesh
High Court Judgement not of Rajasthan REPLY Join The
Discussion Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked Save my name, email, and
website in this browser for the next time I comment. ...