Mutation Based on Will Permissible Under MP Land Revenue Code: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that there is nothing in the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, that prohibits acquisition of rights in land through a Will, and therefore, an application for mutation based on a Will cannot be rejected solely on that ground.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra clarified that if a Will is set up as the basis for mutation, the application must be examined on its own merits. However, the Court reiterated that mutation entries in revenue records do not confer any right, title, or interest in the property and are maintained only for fiscal purposes.

The Court observed that where no serious dispute is raised by any natural legal heir of the deceased tenure holder, and there is no statutory bar, mutation based on a Will should not be denied, as doing so would adversely affect the interest of the Revenue.

The ruling came in an appeal filed by Tarachandra challenging a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated August 14, 2024. The High Court had allowed a petition filed by Bhawarlal and set aside orders passed by the Tehsildar, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manasa, and the Additional Commissioner, Ujjain, which had permitted mutation in favour of the appellant based on a Will.

The High Court had further directed that the names of legal heirs of the deceased tenure holder, Roda alias Rodilal, be mutated in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and in their absence, the name of the State Government be entered in the revenue records.

Roda alias Rodilal, who was recorded as the tenure holder of land measuring 5.580 hectares situated at Mouza Bhopali, died on November 6, 2019. The appellant claimed rights over the land as a legatee under a registered Will executed by the deceased in 2017 and applied for mutation under Section 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

An objection to the mutation was filed by the first respondent, Bhawarlal, who claimed possession over one survey number based on a written agreement to sell allegedly executed by the deceased. The Tehsildar allowed mutation in favour of the appellant, subject to the outcome of pending civil proceedings regarding title.

The first respondent’s appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer was dismissed, as was the second appeal before the Commissioner. Thereafter, the first respondent approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, leading to the impugned judgment.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that there was no serious challenge to the execution of the registered Will and that the first respondent was not a legal heir of the deceased. It was argued that the first respondent’s claim was based on an unregistered agreement to sell and a plea of adverse possession, neither of which could defeat a mutation application founded on a Will.

The first respondent argued that the appellant was not a natural heir and that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It was contended that unless the Will was validated by a competent civil court, it could not form the basis for mutation.

The Supreme Court noted that rights in immovable property can be acquired through various modes, including sale, gift, mortgage, lease, as well as by devolution through a Will or inheritance upon death. The Court found that neither Section 109 nor Section 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code restricts acquisition of rights to specific modes. It also noted that the 2018 Rules expressly recognize acquisition of rights through a Will.

The Bench held that the High Court failed to examine whether the revenue authorities had committed any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 227. Instead, the High Court set aside the mutation orders by relying on an earlier decision that treated mutation based on a Will as impermissible.

The Supreme Court held that this approach was erroneous. It noted that none of the legal heirs of the deceased had challenged the Will, which was a registered document. The objection came from a third party claiming possession based on an unregistered agreement to sell, without any decree of specific performance.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the revenue authorities were justified in allowing mutation based on the Will, subject to the outcome of civil proceedings. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the orders of the revenue authorities.

The Court clarified that the mutation entry would remain subject to any adjudication by a competent civil or revenue court.

Case Title: Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal and Another

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra

Date: December 16, 2025