The Supreme Court has set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that nullified a mutation entry made on the basis of a registered will, holding that there is no legal bar under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, against considering mutation on testamentary succession and that revenue authorities had acted within jurisdiction in allowing such mutation subject to civil adjudication.
Case Details
- Case Title: Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal & Anr.
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra
- Date of Judgment: December 19, 2025
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 15077 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 22439 of 2024)
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1485
Background of the Dispute
The appeal arose from a long-standing mutation dispute concerning agricultural land situated at Mouza Bhopali, Tehsil Manasa, District Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh.
The land, measuring 5.580 hectares across several survey numbers, was recorded in the name of one Roda alias Rodilal, who died on November 6, 2019.
Following his death, the appellant Tarachandra claimed rights over the property as a legatee under a registered will dated May 1, 2017, allegedly executed by Rodilal in his favour.
Relying on the will, the appellant applied for mutation under Section 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Tehsildar, Manasa.
The mutation application was contested by the first respondent Bhawarlal, who claimed possession over one of the survey numbers, Survey No. 195, on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell allegedly executed by Rodilal during his lifetime, coupled with a plea of adverse possession.
Orders of the Revenue Authorities
The Tehsildar, after issuing public notice, inviting objections, and recording statements of witnesses including attesting witnesses to the will, allowed the mutation in favour of the appellant.
The order expressly clarified that the mutation entry would be subject to the outcome of any pending civil suit between the parties.
Aggrieved, the first respondent carried the matter in appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manasa, and thereafter before the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain Division.
Both appellate authorities dismissed the appeals, affirming the mutation order passed by the Tehsildar.
High Court’s Intervention Under Article 227
The first respondent then invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
By its order dated August 14, 2024, the High Court set aside the mutation orders passed by the revenue authorities.
Relying on its earlier decision in Ranjit v. Smt. Nandita Singh and Others, the High Court held that mutation could not be ordered on the basis of a will.
It directed that the names of the legal heirs of the deceased tenure holder be mutated as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and if no heirs were available, the land should be recorded in the name of the State Government.
The High Court added that the direction would remain subject to the outcome of the civil suit pending between the parties.
Contentions Before the Supreme Court
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant assailed the High Court’s order as suffering from non-application of mind.
It was contended that the Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Bhu-Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018 expressly recognizes mutation based on a will, rendering the earlier High Court view obsolete.
The appellant further argued that mutation proceedings are summary and fiscal in nature and do not decide title, and that the first respondent, neither a legal heir nor a beneficiary under the will, could not stall mutation merely based on an unregistered agreement to sell or a claim of adverse possession.
The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and could not be acted upon without adjudication by a competent civil court.
It was also contended that the appellant had an efficacious alternative remedy of seeking declaration of title in a civil suit.
Supreme Court’s Analysis of the Law on Mutation
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of Sections 109 and 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which govern reporting and mutation of acquisition of rights in land records.
The Court noted that rights in immovable property can be acquired not only by inter vivos transfers such as sale or gift but also by devolution through testamentary succession.
It categorically held that there is “nothing in Section 109 or Section 110 of the 1959 Code limiting acquisition of rights to a particular mode” and that the 2018 Mutation Rules expressly recognize wills as a valid mode of acquisition.
Rejecting the High Court’s approach, the Supreme Court observed that an application for mutation based on a will cannot be rejected at the threshold merely because it is founded on a testamentary document.
The Court also referred to a Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Anand Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which clarified that while the Tehsildar can entertain mutation applications based on a will, disputes regarding the validity or genuineness of the will must be left to the civil court.
Limits of Supervisory Jurisdiction
A significant part of the Supreme Court’s reasoning focused on the scope of interference under Article 227.
The Court held that when mutation orders passed by revenue authorities are challenged, the High Court must confine itself to examining whether there is any jurisdictional error or patent legal infirmity.
In the present case, the Tehsildar had followed the statutory procedure by issuing notices, considering objections, and recording evidence.
The appellate revenue authorities had affirmed the decision. The Supreme Court found no jurisdictional error or perversity warranting supervisory interference.
“The High Court, however, without going into the merits of the order and without examining whether there was any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity… set aside the order by placing reliance on an earlier decision,”
the Court noted, holding that such an approach was erroneous.
Mutation Does Not Confer Title
Reiterating settled law, the Supreme Court emphasized that mutation entries do not create or extinguish title and are maintained primarily for fiscal purposes.
The Court observed that denying mutation based on a will in the absence of serious dispute from legal heirs would “defeat the interest of Revenue.”
In the case at hand, none of the natural legal heirs of the deceased tenure holder had challenged the will. The objection came from a third party claiming possession based on an unregistered agreement to sell, without any decree of specific performance.
In such circumstances, the Court found no justification for the High Court’s interference.
Final Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and restored the mutation orders passed by the revenue authorities.
The Court clarified that the mutation entry would remain subject to any adjudication by a competent civil or revenue court regarding title or possession.
Pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
Tarachandra v Bhawarlal
