Maiyadeen vs Baldau And Others

Vivek Jain, J

By way of present petition challenge is made to orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 passed on 14.10.2025 and 30.06.2025 by the Additional Commissioner Sagar, Division Sagar and SDO, Luvkush Nagar, District Chhatarpur thereby the appeal of the respondents against mutation entry of the year 2006-07 has been allowed and second appeal against that order has been rejected by the Additional Commissioner.

It is the case of petitioners that the deceased Gokul Yadav had three sons, one of which was the petitioner Maiyadeen and two other brothers were Badda and Thovan. It is the case of the petitioner that in the lifetime of other two brothers, the name of present petitioner was very much there in the revenue records along with his other two brothers and after death of Thovan who died issueless, mutation took place in the year 2006-07 and the delay of 18 years was condoned in casual manner and further that the SDO has casually held that the present petitioner was not the son of Gokul Yadav but was son of one Arjun Yadav.

The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was not heard because even the notices were issued to the petitioner naming his father as Arjun Yadav which led to the notices not being actually served upon the petitioner and also that the that the SDO could not have carried out enquiry as to paternity, which requires complicated evidence as it goes into the title of the person to succeed the property.

Per contra, the orders are supported by Counsel for the respondents on the ground that in the pedigree as mentioned in the mutation register, the name of present petitioner was entered by way of interpolation and therefore the authorities have not erred in cancelling the entry so far as petitioner Maiyadeen is concerned.

Upon hearing the rival parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the question that whether there was interpolation in the mutation entry was a question of evidence which had to be determined by way of evidence only and most importantly the question that whether the petitioner is son of Gokul Yadav or is son of Arjun Yadav, is a question of fact which goes to the root of entitlement of the petitioner to inherit the property of Gokul Yadav by succession. Such an enquiry into the title of a person could not have been made by the Revenue Authority and no inference as to paternity affecting title and succession title could have been drawn by the Revenue Authority on the basis of any interpolation in mutation register. Even if there was interpolation of overwriting in mutation register, it would not lead to inference of doubting the paternity of a person. Interpolation made in the mutation register it would not have led to a necessary and consequential inference that the paternity of the person is in dispute.

A full bench of this Court in WA. 667 of 2024 (Vijay Singh Yadav and Ors. Vs. Smt. Krishna Yadav and Ors) vide order dated 14.02.2025 has held that the Revenue Courts have no right to dwell upon the complicated question of title between private parties. The Full Bench held as under:-

"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. 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 readwith 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."

7 . Though the said case was a case of mutation on the basis of disputed will, but it has been held by the Full Bench that the Revenue Authorities cannot decide the complicated matters relating to title which require to be decided by way of evidence. Consequently, the orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 are set aside. The respondents are set at liberty to approach the Civil Court in the matter and they would also be at liberty to seek injunction before the said Court.

With the aforesaid liberty to the respondents, the orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 are set aside. The petition is allowed and disposed off.