IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA

th

ON THE 12 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 5285 of 2026 SMT. NIRMALA KUAMRI SINGH AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Makbool Ahmad Mansoori - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Bhagyashree Gupta - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

ORDER By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the order dated 02.01.2026 (Annexure- P/1) passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Jaora, District Ratlam whereby their application under Section 109, 110 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Code') has been dismissed on the ground that since mutation has been sought for on the basis of the Will, in view of the instructions dated 26.05.2023 of the State Government, the same cannot be decided.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the issue as to whether mutation on the basis of a Will can be directed had already been considered in detail by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anand Choudhary Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr [2025(1) MPLJ 646], wherein is has been held that if there is no dispute raised by any legal heirs of the testator as regards the Will, then mutation can be directed. From a reading of the order passed in the case of Anand Choudhary (Supra) it is evident that there is no blanket prohibition upon the Revenue Authority to decide a case of mutation based upon Will. In case there is no dispute or objection raised to the Will, the same can certainly be decided. The circular relied upon by the Tehsildar is prior in point of time to judgment in the case of Anand Choudhary (Supra) hence is not applicable. For ready reference the relevant part of the order in the case of Anand Choudhary (Supra) is reproduced below:-

“ 74. 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 Sec