Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-015077-015077 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 41857/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding on all courts |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Land Revenue / Procedural Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Code’s Sections 109–110 impose no restriction on the mode of acquisition and include devolution by will; the 2018 Niyam expressly recognises wills as valid for mutation. Mutation entries are fiscal and do not confer title. Where no natural heirs dispute a registered will, revenue officers must consider mutation applications on merits and cannot reject them merely for being based on a will. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Roda (tenure holder) died in 2019; appellant produced registered will dated 01.05.2017 and applied under Section 110 for mutation; respondent objected based on an unregistered sale agreement and possession; Tehsildar and appellate revenue authorities allowed mutation subject to pending civil suit; High Court set aside relying on Ranjit; appeal filed to Supreme Court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Overrules | Ranjit v. Nandita Singh (2021 SCC Online MP 3410) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Supreme Court confirms that Sections 109–110 MP Land Revenue Code do not exclude wills as a mode of acquisition.
- The 2018 Mutation Rules explicitly recognise testamentary wills for mutation.
- Mutation entries remain fiscal records and do not by themselves confer title.
- In absence of a dispute by natural heirs over a registered will, revenue officers cannot reject mutation applications solely for being will-based.
- High Court supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to overturn valid revenue orders without jurisdictional error.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 109 requires reporting of any acquisition of right, and Section 110 provides for mutation, without limiting the mode to inter vivos transactions.
- The 2018 Niyam expressly includes wills among recognised modes of acquisition for mutation purposes.
- Mutation is a fiscal record-keeping exercise and does not vest title; serious title disputes belong to Civil Courts.
- High Court erred in relying on Ranjit (which disallowed will-based mutation) without examining jurisdictional or legal infirmities.
- Full Bench Anand Choudhary held that Tehsildar must entertain mutation on will basis and refer serious disputes to Civil Court.
- In Jitendra Singh, Supreme Court noted mutation on will should proceed unless title dispute is raised by natural heirs.
- In the present case no natural heirs challenged the will; respondent’s unregistered sale agreement did not preclude mutation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- The 2018 Mutation Rules permit mutation on the basis of a registered will; Ranjit is no longer good law.
- The registered will is unchallenged by any natural heir; respondent’s unregistered sale agreement is not a bar.
- Title disputes must be resolved in civil suit; mutation proceedings are summary and fiscal in nature.
- Jitendra Singh confirms that mutation on will is permissible absent genuine heirship dispute.
Respondent (First Respondent):
- Validity of the will is doubtful and requires Civil Court certification; respondent holds possession under a sale agreement.
- Appellant may seek civil remedy; Supreme Court interference with High Court’s order is unwarranted.
Factual Background
Roda alias Rodilal held several survey plots and died on 06.11.2019.
Appellant produced a registered will dated 01.05.2017 and applied under Section 110 MP Land Revenue Code for mutation.
First respondent objected, claiming possession under an unregistered sale agreement over one plot.
Tehsildar and appellate revenue authorities allowed the mutation, subject to pending civil suit.
High Court set aside those orders relying on a prior MP High Court decision, prompting this appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 109 MP Land Revenue Code, 1959: mandates reporting acquisition of interest within six months; no mode restriction.
- Section 110 MP Land Revenue Code, 1959: prescribes mutation procedure for acquisition by any mode.
- 2018 Mutation Rules: expressly recognize testamentary wills as valid documents for mutation.
- Section 111 MP Land Revenue Code: reserves civil jurisdiction over private title disputes beyond administrative mutation.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overturns the MP High Court’s Ranjit decision disallowing mutation on will.
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Adopts full bench Anand Choudhary and Jitendra Singh on mutation procedure.