Mutation Of Revenue Records Can Be Carried Out Based On Will : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that there is no legal bar on carrying out mutation of land records on the basis of a will, and that such mutation cannot be denied merely because the claim is founded on a testamentary document. Setting aside the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the Court restored mutation in favour of a legatee under a registered will, while clarifying that such entry would remain subject to the outcome of any civil proceedings on title.

The ruling was delivered by a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra.

Background

The case concerned agricultural land in Mouza Bhopali, Madhya Pradesh, which stood recorded in the name of Roda alias Rodilal. After his death in November 2019, the appellant Tarachandra sought mutation of the land records on the strength of a registered will executed by Rodilal in May 2017.

The Tehsildar, Manasa allowed the mutation after issuing public notice, considering objections and recording statements of witnesses, including attesting witnesses to the will. The mutation order was expressly made subject to the rights of parties being finally decided in a pending civil suit.

Bhawarlal, the first respondent, who claimed possession over one of the survey numbers on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell and adverse possession, challenged the mutation. His appeals before the Sub Divisional Officer and the Commissioner were dismissed.

However, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court set aside the revenue authorities' orders. Relying on its earlier decision in Ranjit v. Smt. Nandita Singh, the High Court directed that the land be mutated in the names of the legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and if none were available, in favour of the State Government, subject to the civil suit.

Supreme Court's reasoning

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had failed to examine whether the revenue authorities' orders suffered from any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 227.

The Court noted that Sections 109 and 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 do not restrict acquisition of rights in land to particular modes such as sale or gift. Acquisition through a will is not excluded. Further, the Madhya Pradesh Bhu Rajasva Sanhita (Bhu Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018 expressly recognises a will as one of the modes of acquisition for the purpose of mutation.

Rejecting the High Court's approach, the bench observed that an application for mutation based on a will cannot be thrown out at the threshold merely because it is testamentary in nature. The Court relied on a Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Anand Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which had clarified that while a Tehsildar can entertain mutation applications based on a will, disputes regarding the validity or genuineness of the will must be left to a competent civil court.

"The full bench decision makes it clear that there is no bar for seeking mutation based on a will," the Court noted.

There are various modes by which rights may be acquired in an immovable property such as sale, gift, mortgage, lease etc., which are from one living person to another. Rights may also be acquired by devolution of interest through a will or inheritance/ succession on death of the title/ interest holder. There is nothing in Section 109 or Section 110 of the 1959 Code limiting acquisition of rights to a particular mode. Rather, the 2018 Niyam recognizes acquisition through will as one of the modes of acquisition. Thus, there is nothing in the 1959 Code proscribing acquisition of rights in land through a will. As a sequitur, if a will is set up, the application for mutation based thereupon will have to be considered on merits and it cannot be rejected merely because it is based on a will.

Mutation is fiscal, not title conferring

Emphasising the limited nature of mutation proceedings, the Supreme Court reiterated that mutation entries do not confer any right, title or interest in property and are meant only for fiscal and revenue purposes.

What is important is that mutation does not confer any right, title or interest on a person. Mutation in the revenue records is only for fiscal purposes, therefore, where there is no serious dispute raised by any natural legal heir, if any, of the tenure holder, in absence of any legal bar, mutation based on a will should not be denied as it would defeat the interest of Revenue.

Reference was made to the judgment in Jitendra Singh Vs. State of MP and Others which held that if there is any dispute with respect to the title, more particularly when the mutation entry is sought on the basis of the will, the party who is claiming title/right will have to approach the appropriate Court.

In the present case, the Court noted that none of the natural legal heirs of the deceased tenure holder had questioned the will. The only objection came from a third party claiming under an unregistered agreement to sell, with no decree of specific performance in his favour.

Holding that the High Court had erred in interfering with the concurrent orders of the revenue authorities, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and restored the mutation in favour of the appellant.

At the same time, the Court clarified that the mutation entry would remain subject to adjudication by a competent civil or revenue court, if any dispute regarding title is raised and decided in accordance with law.

Case : Tarachandra v Bhawarlal

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1246

Click here to read the judgment