The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that revenue officers, including Tehsildars, cannot adjudicate disputes over the validity of wills when determining property mutation. This judgment clarifies the strict administrative limits of revenue jurisdiction under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, reinforcing that only Civil Courts have the authority to resolve title disputes arising from testamentary documents.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Masuriadeen and others, sought mutation of agricultural land in their names based on a will executed by the deceased owner. The respondents, Sambariya and others, contested the validity of the will, alleging forgery and lack of testamentary capacity. The Tehsildar, after receiving objections, rejected the mutation application on the ground that the will was disputed. The petitioners appealed to the Additional Commissioner, Rewa, who upheld the Tehsildar’s rejection. The petitioners then filed this writ petition before the High Court seeking quashing of the Commissioner’s order.
Key Facts
- The deceased owner died on an unspecified date prior to 2018
- The petitioners claimed entitlement to the property through a will dated prior to 2018
- The respondents filed objections to the mutation application, challenging the authenticity and validity of the will
- The Tehsildar, under Sections 109 and 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), declined to proceed with mutation due to the dispute
- The Additional Commissioner, Rewa, affirmed the Tehsildar’s decision on 05.11.2018
- No civil suit challenging or validating the will had been filed at the time of the impugned order
Procedural History
- Date of will execution: Prior to 2018 (exact date not specified in judgment)
- Date of death of testator: Prior to 2018 (exact date not specified)
- Date of mutation application: Not specified, but filed before 05.11.2018
- 05.11.2018: Tehsildar rejected mutation application due to dispute over will
- Date of appeal to Additional Commissioner: Between 05.11.2018 and 2018 (exact date not specified)
- 05.11.2018: Additional Commissioner, Rewa, upheld rejection of mutation
- 2018: Writ Petition No. 28530 of 2018 filed before the High Court at Jabalpur
- 16.03.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Vishal Mishra
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argued that the Tehsildar was obligated to process the mutation application under Section 110 MPLRC since the will was registered, and that rejection without adjudication was illegal. They contended that the Tehsildar’s role was purely ministerial.
Respondents: Maintained that the will was forged and the testator lacked testamentary capacity. They asserted that the Tehsildar was justified in refusing mutation in the face of a genuine dispute over title.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the order dated 05.11.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner
- Direction to the Tehsildar to proceed with mutation in their names based on the will
- Any other relief deemed fit by the Court
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a Tehsildar, under Sections 109 and 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), has the authority to reject an application for mutation on the ground that the title document relied upon - in this case, a will - is disputed by private parties.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the administrative nature of mutation proceedings under MPLRC, arguing that the Tehsildar’s role is limited to recording title changes based on documentary evidence, not adjudicating disputes. They contended that the mere existence of an objection does not empower the Tehsildar to examine the validity of a will. They cited Anand Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh to assert that the Tehsildar must only notice legal heirs and report disputes to the Collector, without deciding them.
For the Respondent
The respondents argued that the Tehsildar was duty-bound to prevent fraudulent mutations and that allowing mutation on a disputed will would cause irreparable harm. They contended that the Tehsildar’s refusal was a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion to avoid recording titles tainted by fraud or invalidity.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the Full Bench judgment in Anand Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 SCC Online MP 977), which laid down a comprehensive framework for mutation proceedings involving disputed testamentary documents. The Court held that the Tehsildar performs purely administrative functions under Sections 109 and 110 MPLRC and is not vested with judicial or quasi-judicial powers.
"The Tehsildar while dealing with cases of mutation under sections 109 and 110 MPLRC between private parties, does not perform judicial or quasi-judicial functions, but only performs administrative functions and therefore, he is not authorized to take any evidence for the purpose of deciding applications for mutation."
The Court emphasized that any dispute concerning the validity of a will - including allegations of forgery, lack of testamentary capacity, or existence of rival wills - constitutes a dispute over a right recorded in the record of rights. Such disputes, as per Section 111 MPLRC read with Section 110(4), fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
"A dispute as to validity of will, competence of testator to execute will or existence of two rival wills of testator... would create a dispute relating to any right which is recorded in the record of rights... and it would be for the parties to approach the civil court to get the dispute adjudicated."
The Court further clarified that the Tehsildar’s duty is limited to: (1) noticing legal heirs under Section 110(4), (2) recording objections, and (3) reporting the dispute to the Collector under Section 110(7). The Tehsildar may not examine the authenticity of the will, weigh evidence, or make findings on testamentary validity.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the will’s registration conferred automatic validity. Registration, the Court noted, does not equate to adjudication of title. The respondents’ objections triggered a dispute that could only be resolved by a Civil Court.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court affirmed the order dated 05.11.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rewa, and held that the Tehsildar correctly declined to proceed with mutation due to the disputed will. The petitioners are at liberty to file a civil suit for declaration of title and possession based on the will. Mutation may only be effected after a final decree by the Civil Court. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Tehsildars Cannot Act as Mini-Civil Courts
- Practitioners must advise clients that objections to wills in mutation proceedings do not justify rejection by revenue officers
- Tehsildars must only record objections and refer disputes to the Collector under Section 110(7) MPLRC
- Any attempt by a Tehsildar to examine the validity of a will - even superficially - is ultra vires and subject to quashing
Civil Court Remedy Is Exclusive and Mandatory
- A party relying on a disputed will must file a civil suit for declaration of title before seeking mutation
- Mutation applications based on disputed wills should be kept pending until the civil suit is decided
- If a civil suit is filed and an injunction is granted, the Tehsildar must halt mutation and report to the Collector
- Absent a civil suit or injunction, mutation may proceed on the basis of the will, but the civil suit remains maintainable
Registration Does Not Confer Title
- Registration of a will under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, is not conclusive proof of validity
- The burden of proving testamentary capacity and absence of fraud remains with the claimant in civil proceedings
- Revenue records are not conclusive evidence of title; they are merely prima facie evidence under Section 111 MPLRC
