Supreme Court Restores Mutation Based on Registered Will; Holds Will-Based Mutation Not Barred Under MP Land Revenue Code

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Sanjay Karol heard an appeal against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had set aside mutation orders passed by revenue authorities and directed mutation in the names of legal heirs (or the State if heirs were not available). The central issue was whether an application for mutation of land records could be allowed on the basis of a registered will and whether the High Court erred in interfering under its supervisory jurisdiction.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order and restored the mutation entries made in favour of the appellant subject to any adjudication by a competent Civil or Revenue Court. The Court held that there was "nothing in Section 109 or Section 110 of the 1959 Code limiting acquisition of rights to a particular mode" and that the 2018 rules recognised acquisition through a will; hence a mutation application based on a will could not be rejected merely because it was founded on a will. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.” The Court further emphasised that "mutation does not confer any right, title or interest on a person. Mutation in the revenue records is only for fiscal purposes," and that where no serious dispute was raised by legal heirs, mutation on the basis of a will should not be denied.

Background The recorded tenure holder, Roda alias Rodilal, held several survey numbers in Mouza Bhopali and died on 06.11.2019. The appellant claimed to be legatee under a registered will dated 01.05.2017 and applied for mutation under Section 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The first respondent filed an objection asserting possession of Survey No. 195 under an unregistered sale agreement. The Tehsildar recorded witnesses, including attesting witnesses to the will, allowed mutation while making the order subject to determination of rights in the pending civil suit, and published notices as required. Appeals by the first respondent to the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner were dismissed.

The first respondent obtained supervisory relief in the High Court under Article 227, which, relying on an earlier High Court decision, set aside the revenue orders and directed mutation in the names of legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act or, if none were available, in the name of the State, while keeping the civil suit outcome open. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not examine whether there was any jurisdictional error in the revenue orders and erred in applying a precedent that treated will-based mutation as impermissible. The Court reviewed statutory provisions (Sections 109–111 of the 1959 Code) and the 2018 mutation rules, and considered the full bench decision in Anand Choudhary and this Court’s prior observations in Jitendra Singh. It held that Tehsildars perform administrative functions and that, while serious disputes about validity, genuineness or testator capacity may require civil adjudication, an application for mutation on a registered will must be considered on merits where no serious dispute was raised by legal heirs. The final result: the appeal was allowed, the High Court order was set aside, and the mutation entry stood restored but remained subject to any adjudication by a competent Civil or Revenue Court. Pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 15077 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22439/2024); 2025 INSC 1485 Case Title: Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment