Mutation on the Basis of a Will under the M.P. Land Revenue Code: Fiscal Entries, Civil Court Primacy, and Limits on Article 227 Interference

I. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India’s decision in TARACHANDRA v. BHAWARLAL & ANR., Civil Appeal No. 15077 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 22439/2024), decided on 19 December 2025 (citation: 2025 INSC 1485), clarifies an important question in land revenue jurisprudence under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (“1959 Code” or “MPLRC”):

Can mutation in revenue records be effected on the basis of a will?
What is the nature of mutation proceedings and how do they interact with civil court jurisdiction?
What are the limits on the High Court’s powers under Article 227 when dealing with such revenue orders?

The judgment is delivered by Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra (with Justice Sanjay Karol concurring) in an appeal arising from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) in Misc. Petition No. 7284 of 2023, dated 14 August 2024.

Parties and Background

Appellant: Tarachandra, claiming as legatee under a registered will executed by one Roda alias Rodilal.
Respondent No. 1: Bhawarlal, claiming possession over part of the land (Survey No. 195) on the basis of an unregistered agreement to sell and alleged adverse possession.
Respondent No. 2: The State (formal party in mutation proceedings).

The central dispute concerns agricultural lands (various survey numbers aggregating to 5.580 hectares) in Mouza Bhopali, where the deceased tenure holder, Roda alias Rodilal, was recorded as owner in the revenue records. After his death on 06.11.2019, the appellant sought mutation of his name on the basis of a registered will dated 01.05.2017. The first respondent objected, claiming rights based on an unregistered sale agreement and long possession.

Key Legal Questions

Whether, under Sections 109 and 110 of the 1959 Code and the Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Bhu-Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018 (“2018 Niyam” / Mutation Rules), mutation can lawfully be ordered on the basis of a will.
Whether the High Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, was justified in setting aside concurrent mutation orders that had accepted the will after recording evidence.
How to reconcile earlier decisions such as Ranjit v. Smt. Nandita Singh & Ors. (2021 SCC OnLine MP 3410), the Full Bench decision in Anand Choudhary v. State of M.P. & Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine MP 977), and the Supreme Court decision in Jitendra Singh v. State of M.P. & Ors. (2021 SCC OnLine SC 802).

II. Summary of the Judgment

Procedural History

The Tehsildar, Manasa registered a mutation case on the appellant’s application under Section 110 MPLRC, based on the registered will of late Roda alias Rodilal.
After issuing public notice, inviting objections, and recording statements including of attesting witnesses to the will, the Tehsildar ordered mutation in favour of the appellant, expressly making it subject to the outcome of a pending civil suit.
The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manasa dismissed the first respondent’s appeal.
The Additional Commissioner, Ujjain dismissed the second appeal.
The first respondent then invoked Article 227 jurisdiction before the High Court, which, relying on its decision in Ranjit v. Nandita Singh, held that mutation cannot be based on a will, set aside the revenue authorities’ orders, and directed that:
- Names of legal heirs of Roda alias Rodilal, as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, be mutated; and
- If such heirs are not available, the land be recorded in the name of the State Government;
subject to the eventual result of the civil suit.
The appellant challenged that High Court order before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding:

There is no prohibition in the 1959 Code against acquisition of rights in land through a will, and consequently, no bar against entertaining a mutation application based on a will.
The 2018 Niyam expressly recognizes acquisition by will as a valid basis for mutation.
The High Court erred in relying on its earlier decision in Ranjit and in not examining whether there was any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the concurrent orders of the revenue authorities.
Following the Full Bench in Anand Choudhary, a mutation application cannot be rejected at the threshold merely because it is based on a will. The Tahsildar may proceed to mutate in undisputed cases, and in disputed cases the parties must approach the civil court.
Mutation entries are purely fiscal in nature; they do not confer title and remain subject to adjudication by civil/revenue courts.
In this case:
- No legal heir of the deceased tenure holder has challenged the will;
- The will is registered;
- The first respondent’s claim rests on an unregistered agreement to sell and alleged adverse possession, without any decree of specific performance.
The revenue authorities’ decision to allow mutation on the basis of the will, subject to the civil suit, disclosed no jurisdictional error. Hence, the High Court’s interference under Article 227 was unwarranted.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court:

Set aside the High Court’s judgment and order dated 14.08.2024;
Restored the orders of the Tehsildar, SDO, and Additional Commissioner directing mutation in favour of the appellant;
Clarified that the mutation entry shall remain subject to adjudication by a competent Civil Court/Revenue Court.

III. Detailed Analysis

A. Statutory Framework and Nature of Mutation

1. Sections 109 and 110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959

The Court reproduces and relies upon Section 110 MPLRC, which governs mutation on acquisition of rights in land records. The relevant scheme is:

Section 109 – Obligation to report: any person lawfully acquiring any interest or right in land must report such acquisition to the Patwari/Nagar Sarvekshak or authorised person/Tehsildar within six months, in the prescribed form.
Section 110 – Mutation procedure:
- The Patwari or authorised person records every reported or otherwise-noticed acquisition of right in the prescribed register.
- They notify the Tehsildar, who:
  - Registers a case;
  - Issues notice to interested persons and authorities;
  - Displays and publishes a notice regarding proposed mutation.
- The Tehsildar, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing and making necessary enquiry, passes orders relating to mutation within specified timelines (shorter for undisputed cases; longer for disputed cases).
- Crucially, the proceedings are to be completed within 2 months (undisputed) or 6 months (disputed), with reporting to the Collector if delayed.

The key point emphasized by the Supreme Court is that Section 109/110 do not restrict the mode of acquisition of rights:

“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.” (para 15)

Thus, whether the right is acquired by sale, gift, mortgage, lease, or by devolution through will or inheritance, it falls within the ambit of “acquisition of right” for purposes of mutation.

2. 2018 Niyam (Madhya Pradesh Mutation Rules)

The Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Bhu-Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018 explicitly recognizes a will as one of the valid bases for acquiring rights in land for mutation purposes.

This regulatory framework is significant because:

It demonstrates the legislature’s intention to treat testamentary succession (by will) on par with other recognized modes of acquisition for revenue records;
It undermines earlier judicial assumptions that mutation cannot be based on a will.

3. Mutation: Fiscal Entry, Not Title

The Court reiterates the long-settled principle that:

“Mutation does not confer any right, title or interest on a person. Mutation in the revenue records is only for fiscal purposes…” (para 19)

This has several implications:

A person’s title to property is determined by substantive law (e.g. Transfer of Property Act, Succession law), through civil or, in some contexts, revenue courts—not by the mere fact of his name appearing in the revenue records.
Revenue entries are primarily to facilitate:
- Assessment and collection of land revenue;
- Maintenance of a current record of who is in possession or claiming rights for administrative purposes.
Consequently, refusing mutation solely on technical doubts about title can “defeat the interest of Revenue” (para 19), because the State would be left without a clear and updated record of the person responsible for fiscal obligations.

B. Precedents and Their Role in the Court’s Reasoning

1. Ranjit v. Smt. Nandita Singh & Ors. (2021 SCC OnLine MP 3410)

The High Court relied on its earlier decision in Ranjit v. Nandita Singh, which had taken the view that mutation on the basis of a will is impermissible, leading it to:

Set aside the Tehsildar’s and appellate authorities’ orders;
Direct mutation in favour of legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, or in favour of the State in absence of such heirs.

The Supreme Court holds that the High Court’s reliance on Ranjit was misplaced for two reasons:

In light of the 2018 Niyam, which recognizes mutation on the basis of a will, the legal premise of Ranjit is unsustainable.
The Full Bench decision in Anand Choudhary (discussed below) has already clarified that mutation on the basis of a will is permissible and that an application cannot be rejected at the threshold on that ground.

While the Supreme Court does not explicitly use the phrase “overruled”, it clearly treats the Ranjit line as no longer good law, particularly post-2018 Rules and the Full Bench pronouncement.

2. Full Bench: Anand Choudhary v. State of M.P. & Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine MP 977)

The Supreme Court reproduces at length the conclusions of the Full Bench in Anand Choudhary (para 18). Highlighted points from that summary:

Serial	Full Bench Holding
(1)	While dealing with mutation cases under Sections 109 & 110 MPLRC between private parties, the Tehsildar performs administrative, not judicial/quasi-judicial functions, and is not authorised to take evidence to decide mutation applications.
(2)	The Tehsildar can entertain mutation applications on the basis of a will, but must enquire about and issue notice to legal heirs of the deceased (Section 110(4)).
(3)	Sections 109 & 110 must be read with Section 111 MPLRC. Where rights of private parties are involved, only the Civil Court can adjudicate disputed cases. The revenue officers’ role is merely administrative for mutation.
(4)	Disputes as to validity of a will, competence of the testator, existence of rival wills, or validity of any non-testamentary registered title document are “disputes relating to any right recorded in the record of rights” and must be resolved by civil courts.
(5) & (6)	Where such disputes are raised, the Tehsildar has no competence to adjudicate them. Parties must approach the civil court. Pending such adjudication, matters may be disposed of or kept pending and reported to the Collector under Section 110(7). The Tehsildar cannot assume the powers of a civil court.
(7)	If no dispute is raised by any legal heir or any other person regarding the will’s validity or the testator’s competence, the Tehsildar may carry out mutation accordingly, though a subsequent civil suit remains open.
(8)	Where Government interest in land crops up, the Tehsildar may have a slightly wider jurisdiction (Sections 111 & 257(a)), but even then he cannot adjudicate the validity of a will or a registered title document.

The Supreme Court fully endorses this Full Bench analysis, especially its central conclusion that:

An application for mutation cannot be rejected at the threshold merely because it is based on a will;
In undisputed will cases (no serious challenge from legal heirs), Tehsildar may effect mutation;
In disputed cases (serious contest on validity, capacity, or rival wills), parties must go to the civil court, and the Tehsildar must not adjudicate title questions.

3. Supreme Court: Jitendra Singh v. State of M.P. & Ors. (2021 SCC OnLine SC 802)

The appellant had argued that Jitendra Singh supports mutation on the basis of a will under MPLRC. The first respondent attempted to rely on the same case to argue that will-based mutation should not be done without civil court declaration.

The Supreme Court clarifies the correct reading of Jitendra Singh:

“… 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.” (para 20, emphasis added)

Thus, Jitendra Singh:

Does not bar mutation based on a will;
Only underscores that when there is a genuine title dispute, parties must approach the civil/revenue court and mutation entries are not conclusive of title.

The present decision harmonizes Jitendra Singh with the Full Bench view in Anand Choudhary, cementing a consistent doctrine: mutation on the basis of a will is permissible, but never conclusive of title.

C. Court’s Legal Reasoning in This Case

1. No Statutory Bar on Will-Based Mutation

The Court emphasizes:

Sections 109–110 MPLRC do not restrict acquisition of rights to non-testamentary modes;
The 2018 Mutation Rules expressly contemplate wills as a mode of acquisition;
Therefore, there is “nothing in the 1959 Code proscribing acquisition of rights in land through a will” (para 15).

As a natural consequence:

“… 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.” (para 15)

2. Application of These Principles to the Facts

The Court notes the following crucial factual features:

Death and recorded tenure holder: Roda alias Rodilal was the recorded tenure holder and died on 06.11.2019 (para 3).
Nature of appellant’s claim: The appellant relies on a registered will dated 01.05.2017 in his favour.
Tahsildar’s procedure: The Tehsildar:
- Called for report and issued public notices;
- Invited objections;
- Recorded evidence, including attesting witnesses to the will;
- Allowed mutation based on the will, but expressly subject to the outcome of a pending civil suit (para 4).
No challenge by legal heirs: Importantly, none of the natural/legal heirs of the deceased tenure holder have challenged the will (para 21).
Nature of first respondent’s claim:
- Not a legal heir of the deceased;
- Claims rights based on an unregistered agreement to sell and alleged adverse possession;
- There is no decree of specific performance in his favour at present (para 21).

Against this factual background, the Court holds:

Where no serious dispute is raised by legal heirs about the will, and the will is a registered document, there is no bar to mutation based on the will (para 19–21).
The first respondent’s claims of possession under an unregistered agreement and adverse possession are matters for regular civil litigation, not grounds to block mutation for revenue purposes, especially when:
- His document is unregistered;
- He has no decree;
- He is not a legal heir.

The Court concludes:

“… 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…” (para 21)

3. Scope of Article 227 and High Court’s Error

Article 227 confers on High Courts a power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within their jurisdiction. It is a supervisory, not appellate, power.

In this case, the Supreme Court emphasizes:

“… when those orders were impugned before the High Court in a petition under Article 227… the High Court ought to have considered whether there was any jurisdictional error, or legal infirmity in the orders impugned warranting interference…” (para 16)

However, the High Court:

Did not examine the merits of the concurrent findings of the Tehsildar, SDO, and Commissioner;
Did not identify any jurisdictional error or procedural illegality;
Simply applied its earlier view from Ranjit that mutation cannot be based on a will;
Set aside well-reasoned orders passed after due notice and enquiry.

The Supreme Court holds this to be a clear misuse of Article 227, stating that the High Court:

“… 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…” (para 17)

Thus, the decision reinforces that the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction is not meant to re-evaluate factual findings or to impose a legal view contrary to the statutory scheme and authoritative precedents, especially where subordinate authorities have acted within jurisdiction.

D. Impact and Significance

1. Clarification of Law on Mutation Based on Wills in Madhya Pradesh

This judgment, read with the Full Bench decision in Anand Choudhary, establishes a clear and authoritative position for Madhya Pradesh:

Mutation on the basis of a will is legally permissible under MPLRC and the 2018 Mutation Rules.
A mutation application cannot be rejected merely because:
- It is based on a will; or
- The applicant is a legatee and not a natural heir.
In undisputed will cases, especially where:
- The will is registered;
- No legal heir contests it;
Tehsildar may proceed to mutate the name of the legatee.
In disputed will cases (validity, capacity, rival wills), the Tehsildar should not attempt to adjudicate title; parties must approach the civil court.

2. Reaffirmation of Fiscal Nature of Mutation Entries

For litigants and practitioners, the judgment is a reminder that:

Revenue entries do not create or extinguish title;
A person dissatisfied with a mutation order should typically:
- File an appropriate civil suit for declaration of title, specific performance, or possession, as the case may be;
- Not treat mutation as determinative of ownership.

This aligns revenue practice with constitutional principles of rule of law and separation between administrative and judicial functions.

3. Protection of Legatees and Stability in Revenue Administration

The decision offers tangible protection to legatees under wills:

Their applications for mutation must be considered on merits, and not dismissed summarily on the blanket notion that wills cannot be a basis for mutation.
Where there is no serious contest by legal heirs, they are entitled to have their names recorded in revenue records, ensuring:
- Recognition for fiscal purposes;
- Ability to pay revenue, apply for loans, or otherwise deal with the land, subject to final civil adjudication.

Simultaneously, third parties in possession under unregistered or inchoate transactions (like unregistered agreements to sell) are not foreclosed:

They retain the right to file civil suits (e.g. for specific performance, declaration, injunction, adverse possession);
But they cannot insist that revenue authorities treat them as owners for mutation purposes in the absence of a legally recognized title or decree.

4. Guidance on Article 227 Practice

For the High Courts, the judgment:

Reiterates that Article 227 is meant to correct jurisdictional errors and grave legal infirmities, not to act as a second court of appeal;
Warns against interfering with reasoned orders of subordinate authorities that are consistent with the statute and authoritative precedents, especially in summary administrative matters like mutation.

This has broader procedural significance beyond revenue law, as it curbs over-expansive use of supervisory powers in routine factual matters.

IV. Complex Concepts Explained in Simple Terms

1. What is “Mutation” in Revenue Records?

Mutation is the process of recording a change in the ownership or possession of land in land revenue records when some right is acquired, such as:

Sale or purchase;
Gift;
Inheritance on death;
Transfer under a will.

It is:

A fiscal and administrative step, so that the revenue authorities (like the Tehsildar) know:
- Who is to be billed for land revenue;
- Who is in possession or claiming an interest.
Not a final determination of legal title or ownership.

2. “Fiscal Purpose” of Mutation Entries

When the Court says mutation entries are for “fiscal purposes”, it means:

The main purpose is related to government revenue and records;
They are part of the administrative machinery to assess and collect land revenue;
They are not meant to decide complex civil questions like:
- Validity of a will;
- Existence of competing title documents;
- Long-standing adverse possession.

3. Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction

Article 227 of the Constitution gives High Courts power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals in their territory. In simple terms:

It is a “watchdog” power, to ensure that lower courts/tribunals act within their jurisdiction, follow the law, and do not commit gross injustice or perversity.
It is not an additional level of appeal where the High Court can freely reappreciate evidence and substitute its own findings for those of the subordinate authorities.

In this case, the High Court was expected to look for:

Whether the Tehsildar, SDO, and Commissioner exceeded their jurisdiction;
Whether they committed a clear error of law or violated statutory procedure.

The Supreme Court found no such defects; hence, the High Court’s interference was improper.

4. Difference Between “Title” and “Possession”

In property law:

Title is the legal right to own and enjoy property, derived from:
- Registered sale deed;
- Gift deed;
- Will (if valid and operative);
- Inheritance under succession laws;
- Decree of a court.
Possession is the factual situation of being in control or occupation of the property, whether or not lawfully.

A person in possession without clear title (for example, under an unregistered agreement to sell) may have certain equitable or possessory rights, but:

For mutation purposes, revenue authorities typically give primacy to recognized legal title;
Disputes between title and possession must be resolved in civil court, not conclusively in mutation proceedings.

5. Unregistered Agreement to Sell and Adverse Possession

An unregistered agreement to sell does not by itself transfer ownership of immovable property. It only gives the buyer a right to seek specific performance (a court decree directing the seller to execute a registered sale deed).
Adverse possession is a doctrine under which a person who is not the owner can acquire ownership if he has been in continuous, open, hostile, and uninterrupted possession for a statutory period, to the knowledge of the true owner.

Establishing adverse possession is:

Factually complex and legally stringent;
Typically done in a civil suit, not in summary mutation proceedings.

Hence, the first respondent’s reliance on an unregistered agreement and alleged adverse possession was insufficient to stop mutation in favour of a legatee under a registered will, though he remains free to assert his claims before a civil court.

V. Conclusion: Key Takeaways

No bar on will-based mutation: Under the MPLRC and 2018 Mutation Rules, mutation can be effected on the basis of a will. Applications cannot be rejected merely because the claim arises from a will.
Administrative nature of mutation: The Tehsildar performs an essentially administrative/fiscal function in mutation matters between private parties and does not adjudicate title disputes.
Fiscal entry, not title: Mutation entries in revenue records are for fiscal purposes only and do not confer or extinguish title. They remain subject to the outcome of civil/revenue court proceedings.
Undisputed vs disputed wills:
- If no legal heir or other person raises a serious dispute about the will’s validity or the testator’s competence, the Tehsildar may mutate on the basis of the will.
- If there is a serious dispute (including rival wills), the Tehsildar must not decide the issue; parties must approach a civil court.
Article 227 limits: High Courts cannot, under supervisory jurisdiction, set aside reasoned revenue orders that are consistent with the statutory scheme and binding precedents, in the absence of jurisdictional error or legal infirmity.
Position in this case:
- The will in favour of the appellant was registered and unchallenged by legal heirs;
- The first respondent’s competing claim rested on an unregistered agreement to sell and alleged adverse possession, without a decree;
- The revenue authorities rightly allowed mutation based on the will, subject to the pending civil suit;
- The High Court’s reversal of those orders was improper and has been set aside.

In sum, TARACHANDRA v. BHAWARLAL firmly aligns mutation practice in Madhya Pradesh with both the statutory framework and constitutional principles. It protects the integrity of revenue administration, clarifies the legal position of legatees under wills, and reiterates that ultimate questions of title must be left to civil courts, with mutation entries playing a supportive but non-conclusive role.

Mutation on the Basis of a Will under the M.P. Land Revenue Code: Fiscal Nature of Entries and Limits of High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction