IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN ON THE 26^th OF FEBRUARY-2026 MISC. PETITION No. 1085 OF 2026 SHYAMCHARAN @ SHYAM CHARAN VS.

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER & OTHERS.

WITH MISC. PETITION No. 1086 OF 2026 SHYAMCHARAN @ SHYAM CHARAN VS.

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER & OTHERS.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Pradeep Singh-Advocate for the petitioners.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(O R D E R)

Since both these petitions are filed involving common questions and are between the same parties, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience facts are taken from MP No. 1085/2026.

2. The challenge in the present case is made to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner Annexure P/1 dated 27.01.2026, whereby the Additional Commissioner has dismissed the appeal against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 27.02.2025.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the matter relates to mutation of the agricultural land and mutation was carried out without hearing the petitioner and by impleading only the vendor and purchaser of the sale deed. It is contended that the petitioner is co-owner in the land and without hearing the present petitioner, the mutation could not have been ordered and this important aspect has been overlooked by the SDO as well as by the Additional Commissioner.

4. Upon hearing the aforesaid assertions, it is seen that there has been a sale deed by respondent No. 4 in favour of respondent No. 5 and the application for mutation was filed in pursuance to the sale deed. The mutation was permitted by the Revenue Authorities and now the petitioner is before this Court. It is the case of the petitioner before this Court that the vendor of the sale deed had no real title to sale the land because she had married an uncle of the present petitioner and she had then remarried and therefore her right, title and interest in the property had come to an end and she did not have any right to sell the land.

5. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the petitioner only raises the question of title of the vendor of sale deed to sale the land. It is settled in law that the Revenue Authorities cannot go into the complicated questions of title of the parties and such registered non-testamentary documents are required to be adjudicated by the Civil Court only, to decide the questions that whether the sale deed is valid or otherwise.

6. A Full Bench of this Court in W.A. 667/2024 (Vijay Singh Yadav Vs. Smt. Krishna Yadav) has held in paragraph 75 (6) that the Revenue Authorities cannot decide the validity of a non- testamentary registered title document and if there is a dispute then unless there is a stay by the Civil Court, then non- testamentary registered title documents have to be given effect. The Full Bench 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