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 | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Revenue law (Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the 1959 Code does not bar testamentary acquisition of rights, and the 2018 Niyam explicitly recognizes wills as a mode of acquisition. Mutation entries under Section 110 are fiscal and may be granted on the basis of an uncontested registered will, with title disputes reserved for civil adjudication. The High Court erred in setting aside the mutation order without identifying any jurisdictional or legal infirmity. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The tenure holder died in 2019. Appellant applied for mutation under Section 110 based on a 2017 registered will; respondent objected claiming a sale agreement and possession. Tehsildar allowed mutation subject to civil suit; appellate authorities dismissed respondent’s appeals. The High Court set aside mutation directing heirs’ entry. Supreme Court restored mutation entries subject to civil adjudication. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All revenue authorities and subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and other revenue jurisdictions |
| Overrules | Ranjit v. Smt. Nandita Singh (2021 SCC Online MP 3410) |
| Follows | Anand Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (2025 SCC OnLine MP 977) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Sections 109 and 110 MPLRC impose no limitation on testamentary acquisition; registered wills qualify as a basis for mutation.
- The 2018 Niyam explicitly recognizes wills as a mode of acquiring rights for mutation purposes.
- Mutation is strictly fiscal; it does not confer title, and genuine disputes on will validity or competing claims must be resolved in civil courts.
- The Supreme Court overruled the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Ranjit precedent, reinforcing revenue officers’ power to mutate on will-based applications absent serious contest.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Sections 109–110 MPLRC and the 2018 Niyam recognize acquisition of rights through wills without exclusion.
- The Tehsildar followed prescribed procedure—reporting, publication, evidence recording—and allowed mutation based on a registered will.
- The High Court’s supervisory interference under Article 227 required identification of jurisdictional error or legal infirmity, which was absent.
- Full bench Anand Choudhary confirms that mutation on will basis is permissible, reserving disputes over authenticity or competence for civil courts.
- Mutation entries serve fiscal purposes; title controversies are to be adjudicated by appropriate forums.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- The 2018 Niyam validates will-based mutations and Ranjit is no longer good law; Anand Choudhary supports mutation on will.
- The registered will is unchallenged; respondent’s unregistered sale agreement and adverse possession claim cannot bar mutation.
- Mutation proceedings are summary; title determination belongs to civil suit.
Respondent (First Respondent):
- The will’s validity and testator’s competency are suspect; mutation on will basis requires civil court certification.
- Presented evidence of possession under an unregistered sale agreement.
- Appellant has efficacious remedy in civil suit; Supreme Court should not interfere with High Court’s order.
Factual Background
Roda alias Rodilal, recorded as tenure holder of certain Mouza Bhopali lands, died on 06.11.2019. The appellant sought mutation under Section 110 of the MPLRC based on a registered will dated 01.05.2017. The first respondent objected, claiming possession under a written sale agreement. The Tehsildar allowed mutation subject to outcome of a pending civil suit; appellate revenue authorities dismissed respondent’s appeals. The High Court under Article 227 set aside the mutation, directing heirs’ entry; the Supreme Court restored the revenue orders, subject to civil adjudication.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 109 MPLRC mandates reporting every acquisition of rights within six months to revenue authorities.
- Section 110 MPLRC prescribes mutation procedure for acquisition of rights in land.
- The 2018 Niyam explicitly includes testamentary instruments (wills) as a recognized mode of acquisition under Sections 109–110.
- The Code contains no prohibition on mutation applications based solely on wills; any authenticity disputes must be addressed in civil courts.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Ranjit decision overturned
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Full bench Anand Choudhary affirmed