Legal provisions involved: Section 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959; Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Bhu-Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018; Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Judgement by: Supreme Court of India

Judge/Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra

Facts

After the death of Rodilal, the appellant claimed rights over agricultural land on the basis of a registered will and applied for mutation. The Tehsildar allowed the mutation, and the decision was confirmed by higher revenue authorities. The High Court later set aside these orders and directed that the land be recorded in the names of legal heirs or the State, subject to the result of a civil suit. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Key legal provisions

Section 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959

Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Bhu-Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Issues raised

Whether a mutation application be rejected only because it is based on a will?

Arguments of the case

The appellant argued that mutation based on a registered will is valid and does not decide ownership. The respondent claimed that mutation should wait until a civil court decides the will’s validity.

Judgement 

The Supreme Court held that mutation cannot be refused merely because it is based on a will, especially when no legal heir disputes it. Since mutation does not decide title, the High Court was wrong to interfere. The appeal was allowed and the mutation order was restored.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.