-
by sayum
23 December 2025 6:03 AM
“Mutation does not confer title; it is fiscal in nature – if no serious challenge by legal heirs, will-based mutation must be permitted”, In a significant decision clarifying the legal permissibility of mutation entries based on testamentary succession, the Supreme Court in Tarachandra v. Bhanwarlal & Anr., emphatically ruled that there exists no bar under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, against allowing mutation based on a registered will, particularly where no serious objection is raised by natural legal heirs of the deceased tenure holder. The Court allowed the appeal, restored the mutation order granted by the Tehsildar, and set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order which had held otherwise while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.
This judgment, authored by Justice Manoj Misra and concurred by Justice Sanjay Karol, firmly reiterates the administrative and fiscal character of mutation proceedings, holding that "the mutation entry in the revenue records is only for fiscal purposes and does not itself confer any title, right, or interest."
“Will-Based Mutation Cannot Be Rejected at Threshold – Tehsildar Not Required to Judge Title or Validity Unless Serious Dispute Exists”
The case revolved around agricultural lands held by one Roda alias Rodilal, who passed away in 2019. The appellant, Tarachandra, claimed mutation rights based on a registered will dated 01.05.2017, executed by the deceased. The Tehsildar, SDO, and Commissioner successively upheld the mutation in favour of Tarachandra. However, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, relying on its earlier ruling in Ranjit v. Smt. Nandita Singh, set aside these orders and directed that mutation be made in favour of the legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, or the State Government, if such heirs were not traceable.
Rejecting the High Court’s approach, the Supreme Court observed:
“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.” [Para 15]
The Court relied heavily on the Full Bench judgment in Anand Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine MP 977), which had categorically held that applications for mutation based on a will are maintainable under the MP Land Revenue Code and the Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Bhu-Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018.
The Full Bench had stated:
“The Tehsildar can entertain application for mutation on the basis of will... and it would be obligatory upon him to enquire about the legal heirs of the deceased and notice them... In case no dispute is raised... then it would be open for the Tehsildar to carry out the mutation in such undisputed cases.” [Para 18, quoting Full Bench]
In this case, the Court noted that none of the natural legal heirs of Rodilal objected to the mutation, and the only objection came from Bhanwarlal, who claimed to be in possession of one survey number under an unregistered agreement to sell. The Court found such a claim insufficient to override a registered will, especially in the absence of any decree for specific performance or adverse possession.
High Court's Interference under Article 227 Was Beyond Its Jurisdiction
In perhaps the most scathing part of the judgment, the Supreme Court criticised the High Court for overreaching its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, which is strictly confined to correcting jurisdictional errors or patent legal infirmities.
The Court noted:
“When those orders were impugned before the High Court... the High Court ought to have considered whether there was any jurisdictional error, or legal infirmity... The High Court, however, without going into the merits of the order and without examining whether there was any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity... set aside the order.” [Para 16–17]
The Court clarified that the revenue authorities had acted well within the statutory framework by:
The Court thus held that the High Court’s order could not be sustained.
Mutation Entry Subject to Civil Court Adjudication – But Cannot Be Denied in Absence of Serious Dispute
Reaffirming its position from Jitendra Singh v. State of MP (2021 SCC OnLine SC 802), the Court once again highlighted the distinction between mutation and title adjudication:
“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... mutation based on a will should not be denied.” [Para 19]
Even in Jitendra Singh, the Court had held that civil courts are competent to adjudicate disputes over title where necessary, but that cannot imply a blanket prohibition on will-based mutation, especially in undisputed scenarios.
The Supreme Court's judgment in Tarachandra v. Bhanwarlal is a robust reaffirmation of the limited scope of mutation proceedings under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. It clarifies that mutation is an administrative function, and Tehsildars are not expected to conduct detailed adjudication of title, especially when a registered will exists and there is no serious objection from natural heirs.
The ruling also reins in the frequent misuse of Article 227 by reminding High Courts to stay within the boundaries of supervisory jurisdiction. As mutation entries are crucial for maintaining fiscal records and enabling lawful possession, the judgment will likely prevent unnecessary litigation and delays in mutation of land, especially in rural areas where land succession often takes place through wills.
Date of Decision: December 19, 2025
