Anil Kumar Gupta vs Ashok Kumar Gupta

Amit Seth, J

1.With the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties, matter is heard finally.

2.The instant writ petition was earlier filed as M.P. No. 1558/2021 and vide order dated 07/11/2025, it was permitted to be converted as writ petition which has been registered as W.P. No. 44476/2025.

3.The instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24/08/2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ambah, District Morena, whereby, the appeal preferred by the respondent against the mutation order dated 22/02/2014 passed by the Tehsildar was allowed. The petition also challenges the order dated 12/03/2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, whereby, the second appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the SDO was rejected.

4.Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioner on the strength of Will dated 18/08/2010 executed in his favour by one Smt. Angooridevi moved an application under section 109 & 110 of MPLRC, 1959 seeking mutation of the land bearing survey No 1654/1 min rakba 415 sq.ft. situated at Mouza Kasba, Ambah, District Morena before Tehsildar, Porsa. The Tehsildar on the mutation register passed order dated 22/02/2014 allowing the said application. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent in first appeal under section 44(1) of MPLRC, 1959 before the Sub Divisional Officer,. The Sub Divisional Officer allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 22/02/2014 passed by the Tehsildar. The petitioner thereafter challenged the said order under section 44(2) of MPLRC, 1959 before the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, which was rejected vide order dated 12/03/2021.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Will was duly proved, the Sub Divisional Officer ought not to have interfered in the order passed by the Tehsidar and the second appeal preferred by the petitioner ought to have been allowed by the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena.

6.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned orders and submits that it is now settled by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. and others , reported in 2025 (1) M.P.L.J. 646 that mutation on the basis of Will, in case, there is dispute cannot be done by the Tehsildar in exercise of powers under section 109 & 110 of MPLRC, 1959. Accordingly, he submits that petitioner is to establish his claim before the competent civil court and there is no illegality in the orders passed by the first and second appellate revenue authorities.

7.No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

8.Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record.

9.A perusal of the record and the petition indicates that the petitioner herein sought mutation of land in question on the strength of a joint will dated 18.08.2010 executed by Angooridevi in favour of the petitioner. The Tehsildar, after affording an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, held the will to be duly executed and accordingly allowed the application for mutation filed by the petitioner.

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. and others , reported in 2025 (1) M.P.L.J. 646 , has held as follows in paragraph 75:

"75. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and hold that Tehsildar cannot reject the application for mutation at threshold on the ground that it is based upon will. However, in view of detailed discussion made by us above, it would be appropriate to summarize our conclusions serially as under:-

1) The Tehsildar while dealing with cases of mutation under sections 109 and 110 of 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.

2) The Tehsildar can entertain application for mutation on the basis of will. However, it would be obligatory upon him to enquire about the legal heirs of the deceased and notice them in view of provisions of Section 110 (4) of MPLRC.

3) Sections 109 and 110 have to be read along with Section 111 of M.P.L.R.C. and a bare reading of Section 111 of M.P.L.R.C. leads to conclusion that where-ever rights of private parties are involved, then it will only be for the Civil Court to adjudicate the disputed cases. The jurisdiction of the Revenue Officers in the matters of mutation in Revenue records, is merely administrative.

4) A dispute as to validity of will, competence of testator to execute will or existence of two rival wills of testator, or a dispute as to validity of any other non-testamentary registered title document as enumerated in Form-1 of Mutation Rules of 2018 would create a dispute relating to any right which is recorded in the record of rights and arising during either mutation or correction of entry would be such a dispute.

5) In case any dispute as mentioned in para (4) above is raised between private parties, then the Tehsildar would not have any competence to decide the dispute and it would be for the parties to approach the Civil Court to get the dispute adjudicated, in terms of detailed discussion contained in para-74 above. Such matters will either be disposed or kept pending and reported to the Collector in terms of Section 110 (7) M.P.L.R.C. by the Tehsildar, in the manner discussed in detail in this order.

6) The decision in disputed cases as contemplated under Section 110 (4) of M.P.L.R.C. does not give any authority to the Tehsildar to decide such dispute and assume powers of Civil Court by going into the authenticity of will or of any non-testamentary registered title document and that outer time limit has to be read only to determine whether a dispute exists in the matter and granting opportunity to parties to approach the Civil Court. If such approach to Civil Court is not made or despite approach no injunction is granted by Civil Court, then mutation will be carried out on basis of succession by ignoring disputed testamentary document and in case of non-testamentary registered title documents, by giving effect to such document. Once a dispute in the matter of competence of testator, validity of the will (whether registered or not) or into a non-testamentary registered title document or dispute as to title is raised before Civil Court and injunction is granted, then the only course open for the Tehsildar would be not to proceed further and to report the matter to the Collector under Section 110 (7) of MPLRC.

7) In case no dispute is raised by any legal heirs of the testator or by any other person in the matter of competence of testator to execute the will and authenticity of the will, then it would be open for the Tehsilder to carry out the mutation in such undisputed cases. However, even in those cases subsequent Civil Suit will not be barred.

8) In case where issue of Government having interest in the land crops up in course of mutation, then the Tehsildar may decide that question in terms of section 111 read with section 257 (a) MPLRC by exercising jurisdiction which is wider than administrative one and may take evidence, but in those cases also, no enquiry as to validity of will or of any registered title document can take place before the Tehsildar."

The law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Chaudhary (supra) enunciates that, in the event of a dispute, the Tehsildar has no authority to adjudicate about the veracity or authenticity of a will and to pass an order of mutation based thereon.

Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Sub-Divisional Officer was justified in setting aside the order dated 22.02.2014 passed by the Tehsildar. The second appellate authority also did not commit any jurisdictional error in declining to interfere with the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.

In view of the above, admission of the petition is declined. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to establish his right in respect of the will in question, in accordance with law, before the Civil Court.

With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.

Pending application (s), if any, shall stand closed.

Certified copy as per rules.