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

th

ON THE 25 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 6223 of 2019 SMT. MIDIYA AND OTHERS Versus RADHESHYAM AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri Abhayraj Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to

4.

ORDER By way of this Petition, challenge is made to the Order dated

17.05.2019 Annexure P-5 passed by the Additional Commissioner whereby the Additional Commissioner has allowed the appeal against the Order dated 23.02.2018 passed by the S.D.O, and has confirmed the order dated 31.01.2013 passed by the Tahsildar.

2. The matter relates to mutation on the land in question. The Respondent No.1 to 4 had purchased the land from respondent No.5 Ramavtar and thereafter, the disputes as to mutation ensued. There is a registered document in against the Petitioners, and they have been raising the ground that they are also legal representatives of deceased Chenu and the deceased Chenu had erroneously partitioned the land in three portions during his lifetime somewhere in the year 2010 and in terms of the aforesaid erroneous partition, respondent No.5 Ramavtar had erroneously got 1/3 share in the land and he sold the land of his erroneously granted larger share to the respondents No. 1 to 4.

3. The matter is pending mutation since the year 2013 and all disputes in relation to the validity of registered sale deed and the validity of partition are being raised before the Revenue Courts.

4. A Full Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3499/2022 (Anand Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. and Others) decided on 14.02.2025 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 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 decid