Ashok Kumar Ahirwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Vishal Mishra, J

The present petition is filed assailing the order dated 22.1.2025 (Annexure-P/8) passed by the respondent no. 4 Tehsildar, Nowgaon, Tehsil Nowgaon, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for mutation of his name in the revenue records on the basis of a Will has been rejected and also the order dated 11.7.2025 (Annexure-P/10) passed by the respondent no. 3 Sub Divisional Officer, Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been rejected on the ground that the will is not proved in any Court of law and imposed the restriction on transfer of the property.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent no. 05 to 10 are the brother and sisters. The partition between the petitioner and respondent no. 05 to 10 had taken place as per as their family settlement long back. The father of the petitioner namely Baijnath was the exclusive owner of Khasra No.1257/1, area 1.778 hectare and Khasra No. 1676/1/1 area 0.200 hectare situated in village Nowgaon Tehsil Nowgaon District Chhatarpur (M.P.). The name of the petitioner's father is recorded in revenue record which is clear from the perusal of revenue record of aforesaid Khasra. The father of the petitioner was living with his family and out of love and affection, he executed a will dated 09.06.2015 in favour of petitioner and it is stated that he had conducted partition between four son and had given the agriculture land to them as per their respective share. The Baijnath Ahirwar who is the father of the petitioner further stated in the will that petitioner takes care of him and undertakes the entire responsibility of him, due to which, he execute a will of Khasra No. 1257/1 and 16/1/1 in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, on the basis of the will, the petitioner filed an application for mutation of his name in respect of Khasra No. 1257/1, area 1.778 hectare and Khasra No. 1676/1/1 area 0.200 hectare situated in village Nowgaon, Tehsil Nawgaon, District Chhatarpur (M.P.) before the Tahsildar, Nowgaon. On notice being issued, the respondents no. 5 to 10 appeared before the Tahsildar and given their consent for recording of name of the petitioner with respect to the aforesaid khasra but the application has been rejected by the Tahsildar on the ground that the will is unregistered and it seems to be suspicion. Being crestfallen, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur and after hearing both the parties has allowed the mutation of the petitioner in the revenue record holding that the mutation can be done on the basis of unregistered will vide its order dated 18.10.2019.

Against the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the SDO, the respondents no. 5 and 6 filed a Second appeal before the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar and learned Commissioner after hearing both the parties and appreciating the documents and material available on record dismissed the appeal filed by the respondents no. 5 and 6 vide its order dated 5.3.2024. Thereafter, the respondents no. 5 and 6 filed a Misc. Petition being MP No.1932/2024 before the High Court. The Misc. petition was disposed off vide order dated 10.4.2024 in which it was observed that the order of Tahsildar cannot be upheld in the eyes of land the orders passed by the SDO and the Additional Commissioner, Sagar are just and proper and the parties were directed to maintain the status quo in regard to the suit property for a period of 45 days and in the meanwhile, the concerned party may file the suit and can seek injunction from the competent Court. It was also observed that all entries in the revenue record will be subject to the outcome of that civil suit. On the strength of the order dated 10.4.2024 passed in the aforesaid Misc. petition, the respondents no. 5 and 6 filed an application for mutation of their names in the revenue records before the Tahsildar which was allowed by the Tahsildar vide order dated 22.1.2025. Against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the SDO, which was dismissed on the ground that the will is not proved in any court of law.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the father of the petitioner was exclusive owner of Khasra No. 1257/1, area 1.778 hect. and Khasra No. 1676/1/1 area 0.200 hect. situated in village Nowgaon, Tehsil Nowgaon District Chhatarpur and out of love and affection with the petitioner, the father executed a will dated 9.6.2015 in favour of the petitioner. Further argued that the order dated 10.4.2024 passed in the aforesaid Misc. petitioner was for a period of 45 days only and while passing the order dated 22.1.2025, the order passed by the High court was not in vogue, therefore, the orders passed by the Tehsildar as well as SDO are liable to be set aside.

Counsel for the respondents no. 5 and 6 on caveat has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions and supported the impugned orders. It is averred that the mutation was sought on the basis of the will which was disputed since inception. It was yet to be proved by leading a cogent evidence before the Court concerned. It is argued that the impugned order is passed based upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Anand Choudhary vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC Online MP 977and he has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From perusal of the record, apart from the admitted facts, it is seen that the mutation was sought based upon the will alleged to have been executed by late Baijnath Ahirwar which was disputed by the respondents no. 5 and 6. It is settled proposition of law that if there is an objection raised on the will and the same is disputed, then the Revenue authorities are having no locus to entertain the application for mutation.

However, the law with respect to mutation of name in the property based upon a Will which is being disputed by the other side is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 433 wherein it is held as under :

"33. The burden of proof that the will has been validly executed and is a genuine document is on the propounder. The propounder is also required to prove that the testator has signed the will and that he had put his signature out of his own free will having a sound disposition of mind and understood the nature and effect thereof. If sufficient evidence in this behalf is brought on record, the onus of the propounder may be held to have been discharged. But, the onus would be on the applicant to remove the suspicion by leading sufficient and cogent evidence if there exists any. In the case of proof of will, a signature of a testator alone would not prove the execution thereof, if his mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated. .. "

In the case of Anand Choudhary (supra), Full Bench of this Court has held thus :

"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 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) MPLRC.

3) Sections 109 and 110 have to be read alongwith Section 111 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) MPLRC by the Tehsildar, in the manner discussed in detail in this order.

6) The decision in disputed cases as contemplated under Section 110 (4) 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."

If the aforesaid proposition as laid down by the Full Bench is applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, then it is apparently clear that the Tahsildar was having no jurisdiction to direct for mutation of the property in the name of the petitioner. Once the will in question is disputed by the respondents, it is for the Civil Court to look into the matter. The petitioner was required to approach the appropriate Civil Court and get his rights crystalized and only thereafter on the basis of the decision before the Civil Court, necessary mutation entry can be made.

Apart from above, the petitioner filed a civil suit bearing CS No.37A/2018 before the Court of First Civil Judge Class-2, Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur which was later on withdraw by the petitioner and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.7.2024.

Under these circumstances, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. The petition sans merit and is dismissed. No orders as to cost.