The Supreme Court has set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order which had nullified mutation entries made on the basis of a registered will and directed that the land be recorded in the name of legal heirs or, in their absence, the State Government. The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra held that there is no legal bar on seeking mutation based on a will and revenue authorities are competent to consider such applications, subject to the outcome of any pending civil proceedings.
The dispute arose after the death of a recorded tenure holder, whose land was sought to be mutated in favour of the appellant on the basis of a registered will executed in his favour. The Tehsildar, after issuing public notice, considering objections, and recording statements of attesting witnesses, allowed the mutation while making it subject to the determination of rights in a civil suit on the objection filed by the respondent. Appeals against the mutation order were dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Commissioner. However, the High Court set aside the revenue authorities’ orders by relying on Ranjit Vs. Smt. Nandita Singh and Others, 2021 SCC Online MP 3410.
Reversing the High Court, the Supreme Court observed that the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, read with the 2018 Mutation Rules, does not prohibit acquisition of rights through a will and expressly recognises testamentary succession as a valid mode of acquisition. The Court clarified that mutation proceedings are intended primarily for fiscal purposes, and do not confer title. It held that “where there is no serious dispute raised by any natural legal heir of the tenure holder, in the absence of any legal bar, mutation based on a will should not be denied as it would defeat the interest of Revenue.”
The Court further noted that objections raised by a third party claiming possession under an unregistered agreement to sell or adverse possession cannot, by themselves, defeat a mutation based on a will. Such rival claims, the Court said, must be adjudicated in appropriate civil proceedings. The Court held that the High Court was not justified in interfering under Article 227 “without going into the merits of the order and without examining whether there was any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the orders passed by the revenue authorities.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restored the mutation entries in favour of the appellant, and clarified that the entries would remain subject to any adjudication by a competent civil or revenue court on questions of title.
Appearances
Petitioner- Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR
Respondents- Mr. N.k. Mody, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ishita M Puranik, Adv. Ms. Jigisha Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Aniya, Adv. Mr. Karan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR
