Revenue Authorities Cannot Adjudicate Disputed Wills – Only Civil Courts Can Decide Title: Karnataka High Court Flags Legal Lacuna and Urges Legislative Reform

“Mutation Based on Disputed Will Is Impermissible—Revenue Authorities Have No Jurisdiction to Determine Testamentary Validity”, Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Deputy Commissioner's decision under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, wherein mutation based on a disputed Will was cancelled and entries were directed in favour of natural heirs. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, presiding in writ jurisdiction, reiterated the settled legal principle that revenue authorities are not competent to adjudicate disputes over title or the validity of testamentary instruments like Wills, which fall exclusively within the domain of civil courts.

“This being the well-settled legal position, the Tahasildar and the Assistant Commissioner could not have certified the mutation based on the disputed Will,” held the Court, endorsing the Deputy Commissioner’s decision to set aside such mutation and directing entries in favour of the deceased’s natural heirs.

The judgment carries not only a reaffirmation of jurisdictional limitations under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act but also reflects a strong judicial recommendation for legislative intervention to address procedural inefficiencies and duplication of litigation in mutation disputes.

Disputed Will, Mutation Entries, and the Limits of Revenue Jurisdiction

The petitioner, Shri Rukmanna, had approached the Court seeking to quash the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 29.09.2020, which had annulled a mutation entry certified by the Tahasildar and confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner. The mutation was based on a Will allegedly executed by the deceased landholder. However, before the Deputy Commissioner passed the revision order, the Will had already been challenged in O.S. No. 257 of 2016, where the Civil Court declared the Will not proved, thereby undermining the petitioner's claim.

Despite this judicial pronouncement, the petitioner argued that the initial certification of mutation by the Tahasildar and its confirmation by the Assistant Commissioner were proper, given that both authorities had prima facie accepted the Will, subject to final civil adjudication.

The High Court, however, found no merit in this argument.

“The Deputy Commissioner followed the well-settled position of law in this regard and has set aside the mutation based on the Will. There is no merit in the petition,” the Court concluded.

Civil Suits Are the Only Forum for Title Disputes—Mutation Entries Must Yield to Civil Adjudication

In a detailed analysis invoking Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the Court emphasized that while mutation entries can reflect factual possession or succession, they do not confer or determine title, particularly in cases involving disputed Wills or inheritance claims.

Section 135 bars suits against the State concerning entries in land records. However, the proviso explicitly permits any person aggrieved by such entries to institute a civil suit under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for a declaration of their rights. In such instances, the revenue entries are to be amended as per the civil court's declaration.

“The dispute relating to possession or title over immovable property affected by any mutation has to be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court,” the Court reiterated, citing the authoritative Full Bench ruling in Jayamma and Others v. State of Karnataka, which clarified that exhaustion of appellate or revisional remedies under the KLR Act is not a prerequisite to instituting a civil suit.

Court Flags Parallel and Sequential Litigation, Seeks Legislative Reform

The High Court expressed deep concern over the multiplicity of proceedings under Chapter XI of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It noted that parties often pursue remedies before Tahasildars, Assistant Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners, and then approach the High Court under Article 226 or 227—all while a civil suit is either pending or yet to be filed.

This, the Court observed, results in avoidable procedural burdens and judicial inefficiency:

“The law in the present form is encouraging multiple proceedings in different forums over one lis, where decision before Revenue Authorities is subject to the decision of the Civil Court.”

Highlighting a structural deficiency, the Court pointed out that civil courts currently lack statutory power to grant interim stays on revenue orders under Chapter XI of the KLR Act. This gap compels litigants to resort to parallel revenue or writ proceedings merely to secure interim relief.

“Probably a provision enabling the Civil Court trying a comprehensive suit, to stay the operation of the orders under Chapter XI... would achieve the purpose and object of the proviso to Section 135,” Justice Hegde opined.

The judgment also questions the practical value of the revisional power under Section 136(3), noting that such revisions typically culminate in non-conclusive findings, which are ultimately subject to civil court verdicts.

Registry Directed to Forward Judgment for Consideration of Law Reform

Given the systemic issues identified, the Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Karnataka State Law Commission, the Department of Parliamentary Affairs and Legislation, and the Department of Revenue, urging them to consider appropriate legislative changes to:

• Empower civil courts to stay mutation orders;
• Minimize unnecessary litigation under the KLR Act; and
• Avoid burdening both the revenue authorities and the judiciary with proceedings that cannot yield final determinations on title or succession.

The Court concluded that such reforms would facilitate “speedy and cost-effective justice” and help eliminate procedural redundancies.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Deputy Commissioner’s order cancelling the mutation based on the disputed Will and restoring entries in favour of natural heirs. While doing so, it delivered a clarion call for legislative clarity and procedural rationalization.

“Experience would tell us that most of the disputes originating before the Tahasildar under Chapter XI... would travel up to the High Court... where the High Court would only be saying disputed entries/mutations will be subject to the result of the suit by the competent Civil Court.”

The judgment is a reaffirmation of jurisdictional discipline, statutory coherence, and the primacy of civil adjudication in matters of title—while also serving as a catalyst for overdue legislative attention.

Date of Decision: 01/12/2025