The Supreme Court held that mutation requests based on a will must be assessed on their merits under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. It emphasized, “the application… cannot be rejected merely because it is based on a will.”
The Supreme Court noted that under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, an application for mutation based on a will must be evaluated on its merits and cannot be dismissed solely because it is derived from a will.
Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra stated,
“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.”
Kumar Dushyant Singh represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate N.K. Mody appeared for the Respondents.
The Appellant, claiming to be a legatee under a registered will following the death of the tenure holder Roda alias Rodilal, applied for land mutation of 5.580 hectares under Section 110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.
Despite objections from the first Respondent who claimed possession of Survey No. 195 through an unregistered sale agreement the Tehsildar ordered the mutation based on witness testimony. This decision was upheld by both the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Commissioner.
However, the High Court set-aside these orders, directing that the land be mutated to Rodilal’s legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act or recorded as State property if there were no heirs.
The Appellant filed an appeal in the Supreme Court to contest this High Court decision, which was made contingent on the outcome of a pending civil suit.
The Appellant asserted that the High Court neglected to apply the Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Bhu-Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018, which allows for mutation based on a will.
They maintained that such applications cannot be rejected at the outset.
Additionally, they pointed out that the will is a registered document and is unchallenged by the natural heirs, arguing that the first Respondent’s claim based on an unregistered agreement and adverse possession should not hinder the mutation, especially since mutation is a summary fiscal process that does not confer title.
Conversely, the first Respondent contended that the will is questionable and claimed that the Appellant is not a natural heir. They argued that mutation should be deferred until civil court verification of the will’s validity.
The Respondent also claimed that the Appellant has alternate recourse through a civil suit for declaration of rights, justifying the High Court’s interference.
The Court remarked,
“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 prohibition against seeking mutation based on a will. However, in instances where there are significant disputes regarding the genuineness of the will, including the testator’s competency or rival wills, such matters exceed the Tahsildar’s jurisdiction.
In such cases, it is appropriate for the parties to seek resolution in a Civil Court.
The Court emphasized,
“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…”
The Court concluded that the High Court erred in interfering with the mutation order(s) favoring the Appellant.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the orders of the revenue authorities were restored.
The Court further noted,
“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 the 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 the exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”
The Supreme Court also noted that in Jitendra Singh v. State of MP, the Court had approved mutation claims based on a will under the same Code, which further supports the appellant’s case.
In the end, the Supreme Court held that the High Court acted wrongly because it did not examine whether the revenue authorities had committed any jurisdictional mistake.
Instead, it simply applied an old view that mutation cannot be based on a will, which is not correct after the 2018 Rules and the Full Bench ruling.
The Court therefore set aside the High Court order and restored the mutation in favour of the appellant, while keeping it subject to the outcome of the civil suit so that the civil court can decide the actual title.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Will
Case Title: Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal & Anr.
Read Attachment
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
