In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of mutation proceedings under revenue laws, the Supreme Court of India has held that mutation of land records can legally be carried out on the basis of a will, and such mutation cannot be denied merely because the claim is founded on a testamentary document. However, the Court reiterated that mutation entries are purely fiscal in nature and do not confer title or ownership rights.
The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra in Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1246], setting aside an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had refused mutation based on a will.
Background of the Case
The dispute related to agricultural land situated at Mouza Bhopali, Madhya Pradesh, which was recorded in the name of Roda alias Rodilal, the original tenure holder. Rodilal executed a registered will in May 2017, bequeathing the land in favour of the appellant, Tarachandra. After Rodilal’s death in November 2019, Tarachandra applied for mutation of the land records based on the will.
The Tehsildar, Manasa, allowed the mutation after following due procedure, including:
- Issuance of public notice
- Consideration of objections
- Recording statements of witnesses, including attesting witnesses to the will
Importantly, the mutation order was made subject to the outcome of a pending civil suit, thereby preserving the rights of contesting parties.
Objection by Third Party and High Court’s Interference
The mutation was challenged by Bhawarlal, who claimed possession over one of the survey numbers based on:
- An unregistered agreement to sell, and
- A plea of adverse possession
His appeals before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) and the Commissioner were dismissed. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside the mutation orders.
Relying on its earlier decision in Ranjit v. Smt. Nandita Singh, the High Court directed that mutation be effected in favour of legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and if none existed, in favour of the State Government—pending the civil suit.
This High Court ruling was challenged before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 and failed to examine whether the revenue authorities’ orders suffered from any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity.
1. Mutation Based on Will Is Legally Permissible
The Court examined Sections 109 and 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, and observed that these provisions do not restrict acquisition of rights in land to specific modes such as sale or gift. Acquisition through a will is not excluded.
Further, the Court relied on the Madhya Pradesh Bhu Rajasva Sanhita (Bhu Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018, which expressly recognises a will as a valid mode of acquisition for the purpose of mutation.
“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.”
2. Mutation Application Cannot Be Rejected at the Threshold
Rejecting the High Court’s approach, the Supreme Court held that mutation applications based on wills cannot be summarily rejected merely because they are testamentary in nature.
The Court relied on the *Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in *Anand Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which clarified that:
- A Tehsildar is competent to entertain mutation applications based on a will, and
- Disputes regarding validity or genuineness of the will must be decided by a civil court, not revenue authorities
Thus, mutation authorities are required to consider such applications on merits, while leaving complex title disputes to civil courts.
Mutation Is Fiscal, Not Title-Conferring
Reiterating settled law, the Supreme Court emphasised that *mutation entries do not confer any right, title, or interest in immovable property. They are meant solely for *fiscal and revenue purposes, such as assessment and collection of land revenue.
The Court observed:
“Mutation in the revenue records is only for fiscal purposes. It does not confer title. Where there is no serious dispute raised by any natural legal heir, mutation based on a will should not be denied, as it would defeat the interest of revenue.”
The bench also referred to its earlier judgment in Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that where title is disputed—especially in cases involving wills—the aggrieved party must approach the appropriate civil court.
Role of Legal Heirs and Nature of Objections
A key factor that weighed with the Supreme Court was that none of the natural legal heirs of the deceased tenure holder had challenged the will. The only objection came from a third party claiming under an unregistered agreement to sell, without any decree of specific performance in his favour.
The Court found that such a claim could not override a registered will for the limited purpose of mutation, particularly when civil proceedings were already pending to adjudicate title.
Final Decision of the Supreme Court
Holding that the High Court had wrongly interfered with concurrent findings of revenue authorities, the Supreme Court:
- Set aside the impugned High Court judgment, and
- Restored the mutation in favour of the appellant, Tarachandra
At the same time, the Court clarified that the mutation entry would remain subject to the outcome of any civil or revenue proceedings concerning title, if raised and decided in accordance with law.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
This ruling is important for several reasons:
- ✅ Confirms that mutation can be carried out on the basis of a will
- ✅ Reiterates that mutation is fiscal and does not decide title
- ✅ Limits High Court interference under Article 227 in revenue matters
- ✅ Protects legatees under wills from arbitrary denial of mutation
- ✅ Maintains a clear distinction between revenue proceedings and civil title disputes
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Tarachandra v. Bhawarlal brings much-needed clarity to the law governing mutation of revenue records based on wills. By recognising testamentary succession as a valid basis for mutation—while simultaneously preserving the jurisdiction of civil courts over title disputes—the Court has struck a careful balance between administrative efficiency and substantive property rights.
For landholders, legatees, and revenue authorities alike, this judgment serves as an authoritative reminder that mutation facilitates revenue administration, not ownership adjudication.
Also Read
Supreme Court | Asset Restraint Continues in Enforcement of UAE Foreign Decree
