IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 8 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 6985 of 2025 SMT. DASHODA BAI Versus ANANDI PATEL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shyam Yadav - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER By way of present the petitioner has called into question the order Annexure P-4 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as confirmed by the Additional Collector vide order Annexure P-6. The appeal of the petitioner had been rejected by the SDO on the ground of it being barred by limitation and the revision has also been dismissed confirming the said order.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had a right to get order on merits and only on the basis of limitation and delay appeal against mutation entries could not have been rejected by the SDO. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be directed to be decided on merits because the present petitioner was not party in the original mutation proceedings and she had filed appeal immediately after getting knowledge of the mutation proceedings.

3. Upon considering the aforesaid, it is seen that the petitioner is grand-

daughter of the deceased landowner and a mutation on the basis of death of landowner was carried out between his class-I legal heirs. Thereafter the petitioner being grand-daughter filed an appeal asserting her rights on the basis of Will and during course of the appeal, the Will was contested by the other members of the family who are some of the Class-I heirs of the deceased land owner.

4. Though at the first flush the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is very attractive that the petitioner has a right to get order on merits, but at the same time it is true that the petitioner is seeking reversal of mutation entries to get entries in her favor on the basis of a Will executed in her favor, though the said Will is disputed by some of the Class-I legal heir of deceased land owner.

5. The Full Bench of this Court in WANo.667/2024 has 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.

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 o