Tehsildar can’t decide mutation applications based on disputed testamentary documents, particularly a Will: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Madhya Pradesh 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 the 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 mortgage 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 —

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. The Tehsildar must not proceed with mutations based on disputed documents and should refer the matter to the Civil Court.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 977, 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