Application Seeking Mutation Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because It Is Based On A Will: Supreme Court

​The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra held, “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."

AOR Kumar Dushyant Singh appeared on behalf of the Appellant, whereas Senior Advocate N.K. Mody appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Appellant, claiming as a legatee under a registered will, following the death of tenure holder Roda alias Rodilal, sought land mutation for 5.580 hectares under Section 110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Despite an objection from the first Respondent—who claimed possession of Survey No. 195 via an unregistered sale agreement—the Tehsildar ordered the mutation based on witness testimony, a decision subsequently upheld by both the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Commissioner.

However, the High Court set these orders aside, directing instead that the land be mutated to Rodilal’s legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act or recorded as State property if no heirs were available. This Supreme Court appeal was filed to challenge that High Court ruling, which had made its directions subject to the outcome of a pending civil suit.

Contention of the parties

The appellant argued that the High Court failed to apply the Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Bhu-Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018, which permits mutation based on a will, supporting the principle that such applications cannot be rejected at the threshold. They further contended that because the will is a registered document unchallenged by natural heirs, the first respondent’s claim—based on an unregistered agreement and adverse possession—cannot block the mutation, especially since mutation is a summary fiscal process that does not confer title.

Conversely, the first Respondent asserted that the will is suspicious and the appellant is not a natural heir, arguing that mutation should be denied until a Civil Court certifies the will's validity. Additionally, the Respondent maintained that the Appellant has an alternative remedy through a civil suit for declaration of rights, and thus, the High Court’s interference was justified.

Observations of the Court

The Court held, “The High Court, however, 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, set aside the order by placing reliance on an earlier decision of the High Court wherein mutation based on a will was considered impermissible… In our view, the High Court fell in error there. More so, when there is nothing in the 1959 Code proscribing acquisition of rights under a will.”

The Court affirmed that there is no bar for seeking mutation based on a will. However, in a case of serious dispute regarding the validity/ genuineness of the will including competence of testator’s capacity to execute it, or where there are two rival wills set up, it would be a dispute beyond the competence of the Tahsildar to decide, and in such a case the appropriate course for the parties would be to approach the Civil Court to get the dispute adjudicated, the Court said.

“But 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...In Jitendra Singh (supra) this Court observed 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 Civil Court/ Revenue Court and get his rights adjudicated. However, in our view, this cannot be taken as a law proscribing mutation based on a will particularly where the legal heirs of the tenure holder raise no dispute.”, the Court held.

Conclusion

The Court concluded that the High Court erred by interfering with the mutation order(s) passed in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside. The order of the revenue authorities was also restored.

"In the present case, none of the legal heirs of the deceased tenure holder raised a dispute regarding the will. The will is a registered document. The objection, if any, is from the first respondent who claims himself to be in occupation of a particular piece of land held by the deceased tenure holder. Moreover, the claim of first respondent is based on an agreement for sale, and possession thereunder. Admittedly, the same is not a registered document and there appears to be no decree of specific performance in his favour thus far. In such circumstances, if the Tehsildar and other revenue authorities had allowed mutation on the basis of the will by making it subject to regular civil proceedings, we do not find any such jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the mutation order as may warrant interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”, the Court observed.

Cause Title: Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1485]

Appearances:

Appellant: Advocate on Record Kumar Dushyant Singh

Respondents: Senior Advocate N.K. Mody, AOR Praveen Swarup, Advocates Ishita M Puranik, Jigisha Agarwal, Aniya and Karan Gupta.

Click here to read/download the Judgment